Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/250/2015

Amar Bahadur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv

23 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	250/2015
Date of Institution	:	19.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	23.05.2016

 

        

                         

 

Amar Bahadur, Permanent Resident of 14, Mochava, Tehsil Amethi District Sultanpur, U.P., at present resident of H.No.134, Block-J, Colony No.4, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

                 ...  Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Punjab National Bank, SCO No.123, Sector 28, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

2]  Indus Ind Bank, SCF No.36, Phase-11, Mohali, through its Branch Manager.

 

…. Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

         SHRI PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant.

Ms.Shalini Bagdi, Counsel for OP-1.

Sh.Arun Dogra, Counsel for the OP-2.

                 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 

                   As per the case, the complainant is having a saving account No.100029449261 with OP No.2 bank and ATM Card against it.  It is averred that the complainant visited the ATM of OP No.1 on 12.2.2015 at around 3:23 p.m. for withdrawal of some money and as such inserted the card and entered Rs.10,000/- for withdrawal, but no amount/money was dispense  out of the machine.  However, still the amount has been shown as debited in the account statement of the complainant (Ann.C-1).  The complainant lodged a complaint on toll free number as well as gave written complaint to OP No.1 and OP No.2, but nothing was done. It is also averred that complainant visited the offices of OP No.1 & 2 to provide him CCTV footage of the said date as well as to settle the issue, but nothing was done (Ann.C-2).  That OP No.1 flatly refused to provide CCTV footage and provided one certificate mentioning that the transaction was successful and no excess was found in the machine (An.C-3).  Hence, alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the present complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OP No.1 filed reply and admitted that the complainant approached its ATM to withdraw the money.  It is stated that the answering Opposite Party duly considered the complaint of the complainant, inquired into the matter and has already given him the certificate mentioning that the transaction was successful and no excess amount was found in the machine.  It is also stated that no CCTV footage was ever demanded by the complainant from the answering Opposite Party before filing of the present complaint.  It is further stated that when the answering Opposite Party asked Balaji Digital Security Devices, Plot No.77, Phase-1, Chandigarh to provide the CCTV footage, they informed that this data is not available as it is older than 90 days (Ann.2).  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

         Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply and admitted the complainant having saving account and ATM Card against it from the answering Opposite Party.  It is submitted that at the request of the complainant, the matter was taken up with Opposite Party No.1, who informed that the complainant did approach the ATM of Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw the money and that on enquiry, it was found that the transaction made by him through ATM was successful and no excess amount was found in the machine. It is also submitted that the CCTV footage, if any, had to be provided by Opposite Party No.1 and not by the answering Opposite Party, therefore, any question of visiting and requesting the answering Opposite Party, does not arise at all. Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant, who is savings bank account holder of OP NO.2 Bank, had visited the ATM machine of OP No.1, on 12.2.2015 to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/-, but after operating the ATM machine, the desired amount of Rs.10,000/- was not dispensed.  Upon this, the complainant visited the Office of OP No.1, after giving a call on the Toll Free number of OP No.1 and gave a written complaint, to OP No.1 as well as OP No.2 on 13.2.2015 and 23.2.2015, but nothing was done by the OPs.  However, the complainant was handed over the copy of account statement Ann.C-1 by OP No.2 showing debit entry of Rs.10,000/-.  The complainant was also given a certificate (Ann.C-3) by OP NO.1 declaring that the alleged transaction in question, was successful, as per the JP Log Book of OP NO.1 and no excess cash was found on 12.2.2015.  However, the complainant claims that no immediate action was taken by OP No.1 in order to show him the CCTV footage of the alleged transaction that had occurred while he had operated the ATM machine of OP No.1, so as to satisfy him about the genuineness of such transaction.  The complainant alleged that after his repeated personal visits and also giving letter dated 13.4.2015 (Ann.C-2) demanding such CCTV footage.  Aggrieved of no action on the part of the OPs has preferred present complaint seeking the quoted relief.

 

7]       The OP No.1 while contesting the claim of the complainant has claimed that when the complainant approached his office seeking details of the transaction of the ATM machine, the same was already beyond 90 days period, for which the CCTV footage is saved in the system, to be retrieved to go through it again.  OP No.1 has also claimed that after going through the details of JP Log Book, a certificate Ann.C-2 was given to the complainant detailing that the alleged transaction was successful and no extra cash was fund at the ATM machine on 12.2.2015.  OP No.1 has also placed on record an Engineer’s Check Report, dated 28.5.2015, according to which the CCTV footage of 12.2.2015 cannot be retrieved as the same is more than 90 days old and the system could not save it beyond this period.  

 

8]       OP No.2 while contesting the claim of the complainant, has claimed that the matter pertains to the use of ATM machine of OP No.1 and as per the details of the transactions that had occurred at the ATM machine, a debit entry of Rs.10,000/- was effected on the saving back account number of the complainant maintained with OP No.2, thus citing no deficiency in service on its part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. 

 

9]       On perusal of the documents placed on record by the parties, it is abundantly clear that when desired cash of Rs.10,000/- was not dispensed by the ATM machine of OP No.1, the complainant brought the matter before OP No.1 as well as its own bank i.e. OP No.2.  However, nothing fruitful came out of such representation.  OP No.1 though has admitted to the issuance of certificate Ann.-1, which was issued to the complainant on his representation, declaring that the alleged transaction dated 12.2.2015 was successful and no excess cash was detected on the given date.  If we believe this certificate, which is undated and does not disclose the sources from where the information quoted in the certificate has been sourced.  Therefore, the OP No.1 has created this undated document, to save its skin and cover up the matter raised by the complainant before it.  It is necessary to mention here that OP NO.1 has no where acknowledged the receipt of different representations by the complainant while issuing this certificate.

 

10]      OP No.1 has also placed on record and engineer’s check report dated 28.5.2015, which declares that the CCTV footage of 12.2.2015 cannot be retried, as the data in the system is only available for the period of 90 days proceedings it. If we believe the complainant’s representation dated 13.4.2015, seeking such CCTV footage, OP No.1 took almost 1½ months to arrange such inspection, which being in full knowledge that nothing would come out of such exercise, which was past 90 days of the happening of the event. The OP No.1 while placing on record the certificate Ann.-2 has nowhere mentioned that the same was provided to the complainant promptly on his watch request.  The delayed action on the part of Op No.1 has not only raised suspicion in the mined of the complainant about its bona-fides. But having failed to explain such an inordinate delay of 1 ½ months, has acted in a deficient manner. In the given situation, delayed action on the part of OP No.1, has resulted into a situation where the truth about the alleged transaction dated 12.2.2015, through which the complainant lost his precious Rs.10,000/- would never see the light of the day.

 

11]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.1 is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua OP NO.2. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-, within 45 days of its receipt; thereafter, it shall also be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum, on the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying the litigation expenses.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

23^rd May, 2016                                                             Sd/-

                (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER 

 

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.250 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 23rd day of May, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against OP NO.1.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member