Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/636/2015

Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

Hemant Parihar Adv. & Kumar Nikshep Adv.

24 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	636 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	04.11.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	24.06.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Balbir Singh son of Sh.Inder Singh, resident of House NO.413, Near Dharamshala, Village Kishangarh, Chandigarh.     

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Punjab National Bank, Registered Address: 7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi through its General Manager.

 

2]  Punjab National Bank, SCO No.26-27, Sector 16, Chandigarh, through its Chief Manager.

 

3]  Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Bank Square, Chandigarh through its Chief Manager.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

        

 

Argued by:-

            Sh.Hemant Parihar, Counsel for the complainant.

            Sh.Y.P.Sharma, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant along with his wife-Nachhatar Kaur, is maintaining a joint saving account No.0408000400357548 with Opposite Party NO.3, against which an ATM Card has also been issued, having SMS alter with mobile number 98146-61506.  It is averred that on 20.12.2014 at about 06.20 PM, the complainant approached the ATM of Opposite Party NO.2 for withdrawal of certain amount and when he was operating the ATM machine for withdrawal of money in process i.e. after pressing the option ‘yes’ for receipt, suddenly the screen of the ATM turned black and there was no option for the complainant to withdraw the money, then the complainant pressed the cancel button.  It is also averred that at that relevant time, three boys were also standing in the cabin of ATM and without asking for the help, they started assisting the complainant but the money could not be withdrawn.  Then complainant left the ATM, but was shocked to receive a SMS after 2-3 minutes regarding withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- from his account.  The complainant immediately lodged the complaint online system with the bank, followed by another complaint dated 31.12.2014 and complaint made to police.  However, Opposite Party NO.2 vide letter dated 9.2.2015 apprised the complainant about the providing of CCTV footage to the police authorities on 5.2.2015 and further apprised the complainant to obtained the CCTV footage after paying vendor’s charge but failed to give satisfactory reply with regard to withdrawal of Rs.15,000/-.  However, the complainant felt satisfied with the investigation done by the police and as such withdrew his complaint.  It is pleaded that the OPs were the custodian of money of the complainant and the same has been debited from his account fraudulently, and that the fraudulently withdrawal of money, amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on their part. Further, the OPs failed to comply with the norms & rules of maintaining ATM as there was no security guard present outside the ATM.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.     

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed joint reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case about complainant’s having account with their bank as well as ATM issued against it.  It is submitted that while issuing ATM card every customer is advised not to disclose their ATM Card details and password to any other person and not to take assistance of any third person while operating the ATM Card.  It is also submitted that in the present case the transaction has been successfully carried out by the complainant by using his ATM card, which as per the admitted case, continued to be available with him.  It is further submitted that the complainant concealed the fact that after the alleged transaction of Rs.15,000/-, he has used ATM card again in the same ATM machine after few minutes for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- showing thereof that the ATM machine was working perfectly all right and the secret PIN was also in the exclusive knowledge of the complainant.  It is asserted that the complainant had approached the Banking Ombudsman and his complaint was dismissed vide order dated 27.7.2015.  It is also asserted that the whole episode was done with the assistance of three boys standing in ATM cabin as concluded by the Hon’ble Banking Ombudsman after going through the CCTV footage as per Ann.R-3 and hence there was a negligence on the part of the complainant.  Further, the online complaint of the complainant, upon investigation was closed under telephonic intimation to complainant as the transaction was found to be successful (Annexure R-4).  Further, the complainant in his complaint (Ann.C-9) has himself admitted that he was called by the Opposite Party NO.2 and shown the CCTV footage wherein he has seen the miscreants who were standing by him at the time he was operating the ATM machine, had withdrawn the money. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying the allegations of the complainant, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party NO.3 has filed the reply on the same lines as of OPs NO.1 & 2, hence needs not to be repeated.

 

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

 

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]       Before going into the merits of the case, we deem it proper to deal with the objection raised by the ld.Counsel for the opposite parties to the effect that the complainant in various paras of his complaint has made allegations of fraudulent act against the opposite parties.

 

7]       The Para No.3 of the complaint as well as of affidavit filed in support of the complaint, establishes that the complainant has made allegations of fraudulent withdrawal against the OPs. Hence, the objection of the OPs is held to be justified.   

 

8]       It is a settled law that where there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora where the proceedings are essentially summary in nature. Here we are supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, in Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Munimahesh Patel, 2006(2) CPC 668 (SC) wherein it was held that the proceedings before the National Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held therein that in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In case Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United Insurance Co.-(1998) CPJ 13, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the Complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter.  Thus in view of the above authoritative pronouncements it is clear that complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.

 

9]       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Therefore, the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate Court/Agency/Authority for redressal of his grievance.

 

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

Announced

09^th June, 2016                                                   Sd/-  

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER