Haryana

Karnal

458/13

Harigyan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

01 Sep 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

         Complaint No.458 of 2013

    Date of instt. 19.11.2013

                                                                                             Date of decision: 07.08.2015

 

Harigyan Singh son of late Sh.R.L.Singh r/o House No.210, Arya Puram, Opp.ITI Gate, Karnal.

                                                             ……….Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

Branch Manager,(ATM)Punjab National Bank, Branch Kunjpura Road, near ITI, Karnal.

 

                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma ………Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma……….Member.

 

Present:        None for the complainant..

                   Sh.Somesh Garg Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that he is customer of the  Opposite party ( in short OP) having account No. 4137000100058724 and ATM card No.5126520189157964.  On 31.10.2013 his son namely Nakul Singh  tried a transaction through ATM existing in the Branch office of OP, but the transaction did not complete. However, SMS came that amount of Rs.10,000/- regarding said transaction was debited in his account. He lodged complaint bearing No. 60554082 dated 1.11.2013 on telephone through toll free No. 18001802222, but after  eleven days the complaint was rejected.  On the same day i.e. 1.11.2013, he lodged written complaint to the Manager of the OP bank and also lodged a complaint on 12.11.2013 on e-mail ATM Cell telephone No. 011-43532211 and 011-43532200,  but the telephones did not respond, even after trying to contact a number of times. The complainant has sought directions against the OP to credit the amount of Rs.10,000/- in his account as per RBI rules and pay compensation for causing mental pain, agony and harassment to him.

 

2.                Upon notice, the OP put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the  complainant. Preliminary objection has been raised that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and  has suppressed the material facts, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that  ATM  card was not operated by the complainant himself and as per his version his minor son had operated his ATM on 31.10.2013.  As per record of the OP, at head office level i.e. New Delhi  as well as at Branch level i.e. local  level, the transaction  done by the son of the complainant was successful and ATM  machine  delivered Rs.10,000/-  to the operator of the ATM   card bearing No. 5126520189157964 at transaction No.8325 dated 31.10.2013 at about 6.19PM. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited in the  account No. 4137000100058724 of the complainant.  It has further been averred that if ATM  card holder operates his ATM in front of many people  and discloses secret PIN Code to any person  and then any fraud happens with any ATM, then OP is not responsible for such fraud. So, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

3.                In evidence of complainant he filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.

 

4.                On the other hand  OP filed affidavit of Sh.S.K.Bhatia, Senior Manager Ex.OP/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O5.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                As per  the case of the complainant his son Nakul Singh tried a transaction through ATM in Branch office, PNB, Kunjpura Road,  ITI Karnal on 31.10.2013, but the transaction did not complete. It has further been alleged that SMS was received regarding the said transaction that amount of Rs.10,000/-  was debited in his account. It has also been alleged that he made complaints on telephone through toll free number on 1.1.2013 and on the same day he sent written complaint to Manager of PP Bank and thereafter sent e-mail  on 12.11.2013 but to no effect.

 

6.                The OP has asserted that transaction was complete and ATM machine had delivered the amount of Rs.10,000/-  to the operator of the ATM Machine and accordingly the amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited in the account of the complainant.

 

7.                It is important to point out at the very out set that the ATM card was not operated by the complainant on 31.10.2013 rat her the same was operated by his son Nakul Singh. There is self/serving statement of the complainant that his son operated the ATM card and the transaction did not complete, but the same cannot be taken to be the gospel truth, particularly when  record of the bank indicates otherwise. OP has produced the JP log switch transaction report and reconciliation sheets Ex.O1 to Ex.O4 regarding the transactions of the OP bank on 31.10.2013.  All these documents taken together are sufficient to prove that transaction was complete and the amount of Rs.10,000/-  was disbursed to the ATM card holder by the  ATM Machine of the OP bank. There is nothing on the record from which even an inference may be drawn that on 31.10.2013, ATM Machine of the Bank was not functioning properly. Had the machine not been functioning properly, then the difference could be noted while preparing the reconciliation sheet and tallying with the balance amount of ATM, but no such mistake was found as is evident from the JP log and reconciliation sheet.

 

8.                 Moreover, in State Bank of India Vs. Ritu Lakhanpal  IV (2014) CPJ 8A(CN) (UT Chd), it was held  by Hon’ble  UT, SCDRC, Chandigarh that in view of the elaborate procedure evolved by bank to ensure that without ATM card and  knowledge of PIN number, it is not possible to withdraw money from ATM Machine. Hon,ble State Commission, Haryana  in appeal No.227 of 2013 titled Bank of India Vs. Ashok Kumar, decided on 23.5.2013 has held that ATM card remains  within the possession of the complainant alongwith secret number and nobody can withdraw any amount without secret code. Same view was  expressed by the Hon’ble National Commission in  State Bank of India  Vs.K.K.Bhalla in revision   petition No.3182  of 2008.  In  Sarabjit Singh Lahri Versus  PNB and another 2003(1) CPC page 425, similar view was expressed by the Hon,ble State SCDRC( UT)Chandigarh.

 

9.                In view of the law laid down in the aforecited authorities, it is clear that Pin Code is a secret and ATM is also very personal document and without using the pin code and ATM card, the transaction cannot be completed. The JP log and reconciliation sheet produced by the OP reflects that transaction was successful. Therefore, it  is to  held that Nakul Singh son of the complainant  used the ATM card by inserting pin code. There is nothing on the file except bald statement of the complainant by way of affidavit to prove that  amount of Rs.10,000/- was not withdrawn by the complainant or his son Nakul Singh. Consequently, the allegations of the complainant do not stand substantiated and as such there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and as such the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:7.08.2015                                                                             

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)(Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.

 

 

 

 

 

                  Harigyan Singh Vs. Br.Manager PNB

 

 

Present:        None for the complainant..

                   Sh.Somesh Garg Advocate for the OP.

 

                   The case has been called a number of times since morning but none has put into appearance on behalf of the complainant. It is already 2.30PM. No further wait is justified.  The parties have already led their evidence. Therefore, instead of dismissing the complaint in default, it would be proper to decide the same on merits.

 

                   Arguments of learned counsel for the OP heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint has been dismissed. The parties  concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:7.08.2015                                                                             

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

             

 

  (Smt.Shashi Sharma) (Anil Sharma)

          Member.            Member.