DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No.290/14

In the matter of:

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

Order by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that he has a saving account bearing             No. 3927000100176334 with OP at its Punjab National Bank, Dilshad Garden branch, Delhi-93. On 24^th January 2012 at around 6:24 PM the complainant tried to withdraw cash from the PNB ATM for Rs. 25,000/- out of which the 1^st transaction of Rs. 15,000/- was successful however when the complainant tried to take out the Rs. 10,000/- in 2^nd transaction, he could not get the money from the said ATM. However, his account got debited by Rs. 10,000/- and when he tried to transact again, the ATM showed that his limit has expired. The complainant wrote a complaint to PNB -OP customer care bearing complaint no. 57107120 and several subsequent complaints between February 2012 to August 2012, to the OP alongwith account statement showing the relevant transaction on the given date, but the OP rejected the complaint on the grounds of “transaction successful cleared”. Thereafter, the complainant wrote a complaint to banking ombudsman on 15.03.2012 for redressal of his complaint but got no relief there also. The complainant further states that the video footage of CCTV camera of ATM transaction for the relevant date was taken by him which showed that the complainant alone was present at that time and only one transaction of Rs. 15,000/- could be seen in CCTV footage. The complainant has also placed on record letter dated 20.4.2012 written by the OP to the chief manager, head office of the OP bank located at Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi in which the concerned OP branch had requested for the following information with respect to the complaint of the complainant regarding no receipt of Rs. 10,000/- from the ATM:-

1. No excess cash found certificate
2. Copy of reconciliation sheet
3. Switch report

Lastly the complainant stated that after eight months of the incident, finally on 18^th September 2012 the complainant received a call from RBI cell that his complaint is rejecting on the ground “transaction successful cleared”. The complainant has thereafter filed the present complaint before this forum and prayed to this forum for investigation and decision on his complaint.

2. Notice was issued to the OP and thereafter written statement was filed by OP the placing on record the switch report and reconciliation sheet and letter from ATM cell TBD, Head Office through E-mail dated 11.11.2012 showing that the transaction disputed by the complainant was successful and no excess amount has been found in reconciliation of ATM machine. OP further took the plea that the alleged amount of             Rs. 10,000/- has been received by the complainant during the transaction made on the giving date i.e. 24.1.2012 from the ATM machine installed by the OP in its Dilshad Garden branch. The reconciliation sheet alongwith switch reports were annexed with the written statement by the OP to corroborate its defence.
3. The complainant placed on record CCTV footage with respect to the ATM transaction on the relevant date i.e. 24.1.2012 which he had procured from the OP and placed it on record of this Forum vide letter dated 31.07.2014. No separate evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant but OP filed its evidence by way of affidavit. In its evidence OP reiterated its stand that the complainant had received the total amount of Rs. 25,000/- vide transaction No. 4439 and the complainant in order to fail/dispute the receipt of amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the ATM of OP, used the same ATM card again and again whereas the mini-statement was already received by the complainant with remarks that his limit has expired and therefore the complainant’s complaint No. 571071209 lodged with the customer care of OP was rightfully rejected. The OP lastly stated that the complaint of the complainant before the banking ombudsman was also dismissed on the basis of reconciliation sheet and switch report. Further the OP stated that the ATM reconciliation centre at the head office of OP informed that transaction No. 4439 “which related to the disputed transaction of Rs. 10,000/- was successful and no excess cash was found in reconciliation sheet.”
4. Written arguments were filed by both the parties.
5. We have heard the arguments on behalf of parties and have carefully perused the documents placed on record thereof. On carefully examination of the complaint filed by the complainant certain discrepancies and contradictions have caught our attention. The complainant on one hand states that there were two transaction of             Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on the date of 24.1.2012 whereas on perusal his letter to OP dated 10.2.2012 he states that the complainant tried to withdraw cash from PNB ATM of Rs. 6,000/- on the given date but instead of his account debited for Rs. 10,000/- without receiving any money. It can be seen that in subsequent letters to the OP and banking ombudsman and even in his account statement for the period 1.1.2012 to 9.2.2012 there is a clear contradiction and change of stand or shall we say improvement on the transaction issue based on the account statement which left no room for manipulation with respect to the transaction in question. The subsequent letters dated 13.6.2012, 2.8.2012, 15.3.2012 and 13.4.2012 are consistent in term of the transaction but a marked departure from the 1^st complaint dated 10.2.2012 in as much as the subsequent letter states two transaction of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-. There is another contradiction from what has been averred by the Complainant in his complaint and the documents in support thereof in as much as the complainant stated that he had written a complaint to PNB vide complaint No. 57107120 on the same date of this incident i.e. 24.1.2012. However, the 1^st correspondence placed on record by him regarding this complaint was dated 10.2.2012.
6. This Forum had specifically put on the complainant the onus to produce or place on record the original transaction slip of the disputed transaction dated 24.1.2012 for Rs. 10,000/- which the complainant admitted to not have in his possession which was a very vital document with respect to the dispute in hand and would have given a lead into the matter. We have carefully screened and examined the CCTV Footage placed on record but it only shows the complainant making transactions and is not conclusive or full proof evidence of a failed transaction.
7. After thorough-analysis of the case, the case of the complainant does not inspire confidence in term of veracity and authenticity of his claim qua OP. There are serious contradiction, discrepancies and missing of vital document which are necessary for proper adjudication in his favour. On the other hand the OP has placed documents which are conclusive, decisive and comprehensive in nature and leave no room for suspicion or lacuna in rejection of the complaint from base level upto the highest level i.e. from the OP to the banking ombudsman upto the RBI. In the case of Dinesh Malik vs State Bank of Patiyala I (2016) CPJ 550 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission has dealt-with similar issue of account debited and money not disbursed by the ATM. In this case also a specific question was put to the complainant whether the ATM receipt obtained from the ATM of the Bank has been filed by the complainant or not and the same was admittedly not filed. The Hon’ble National Commission weighed the matter in terms of the documentary evidence filed by both the parties and clearly the documents placed on record by the bank out-weighed those filed by the complainant and on basis of such documents, the debited amount was not returned in the account of the petitioner therein.  We therefore, relying on the present case law find no illegality or material irregularity on the part of OP and find no merits in the present complaint of the complainant as we see no reason why the OP would not have refunded or make good the loss alleged by the complainant in ATM transaction if it was a genuine case. We do not find OP deficient in service and the complaint of the complainant is devoid of merits and hereby dismissed without cost.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party, free of cost, as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 18.11.2017)