Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/433/2021

Jagbir S/o Kulwant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

complainant inperson

07 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                                   Complaint No.:      433 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution:   31.12.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision:     07.12.2022.

 

Jagbir age about 41 years son of Sh. Kulwant, resident of Village Gulkani, District Jind, Haryana, presently reside at H. No.156-F, Railway Colony, Near Power House Jagadhri Workshop, District Yamuna Nagar, Aadhar No.627187068292, Mobile No.9034466045.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

 

                                                  Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Near Vishnu Nagar, Balmiki Chowk, Jagadhri Workshop, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager/authorized signatory.
2. Diebold NIXDORF India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Vartika Triangle Sushant Lok, Sector 28, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Gurugram, Haryana- 122002.

...Respondents.

 

 

CORAM:   GULAB SINGH, PRESIDENT.       

                   DR. BARHM PARKASH YADAV, MEMBER.

                   GEETA PARKASH, LADY MEMBER.

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                    Shri Saurabh Bansal, Adv. for the opponent No.1.

                    Opponent No.2 ex-parte.

 

ORDER:

 

1.              This is complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short Act).

2.              Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.9, written statement, supportive documents Ex.R1, admitted facts of the case are, the complainant is having his account bearing No.1052000100040548 with the opponent bank and the he availed ATM card facility from the opponent and on 30.09.2021, he withdrew Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of the opponent installed in the premises of the opponent bank.

3.             The complainant alleged, on collection of currency notes of Rs.20,000/- only from the ATM of the opponent bank, he found two currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each were torn and one currency note of denomination of Rs.500/- was an inappropriate  note. All the credentials of three notes were barely visible and appeared to be washed out (for short damaged notes). The keeping of damaged notes in the ATM, by the opponent was an act of negligence, deficiency in service, as well as misconduct and fraudulent act, as a result of it, he suffered net loss of Rs.1500/-. He on many time visited the opponent bank narrating his tale of woe, but the opponent bank failed to redress his grievance which constrained him to file the complaint.

4.             On receipt of notice of complaint, the opponent No.1 in its written statement denied any act of negligence, deficiency in service and pleaded in fact in the ATM, the currency notes were kept by Diebold NIXDORF India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Vartika Triangle Sushant Lok, Sector 28, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Gurugram, Haryana, agency which had been appointed for the maintenance of the ATM.

5.           Taking the note of the pleading of the opponent No.1, Diebold NIXDORF India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Vartika Triangle Sushant Lok, Sector 28, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Gurugram, Haryana (for short Diebold agency) was ordered to be impleaded as opponent No.2 and notice of the complaint alongwith supportive documents was ordered against it by this Commission, but the opponent No.2 despite receipt of notice of the complaint failed to appear before the Commission and was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on 10.05.2022.

6.              In the course of arguments, the complainant reiterated to the version made into the complaint.

7.           Sh. Saurabh Bansal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and the written statement filed by the opponent No.1 and he as a goodwill gesture without admitting any fault on the part of the opponent bank offered payment of Rs.3500/- to the complainant to compensate him. Statement of counsel for the opponent No.1 was recorded on 06.12.2022. The complainant declined the offer made by the opponent bank through Advocate Sh. Saurabh Bansal.

8.              The moot question before this Commission, is whether, the damaged currency notes Ex.C7 to Ex.C9 were kept in the ATM by the opponent No.1 or by the opponent No.2, then if the same were kept, either of the opponent, then further it amounted to act of negligence, deficiency in service, making the complainant entitled to the relief as prayed or to what extent?

9.            It is well settled principle of law, complainant is duty bound to prove his/her case by standing on his/her legs. He/she is not supposed to take the advantage of the weakness of the opponent or to peep into the defence of the opponents. There is no dispute on 30.09.2021, the complainant withdrew Rs.20,000/- from the ATM of the opponent No.1 by operating the ATM twice. The question is, were these damaged notes were the part of currency notes of Rs.20,000/- which the complainant withdrew from the ATM on 30.09.2021. The complainant has not immediately complained to the opponent No.1 and there is no scientific yardstick with the Commission to find the damaged notes were part of the currency notes which complainant withdrew from the ATM on 30.09.2021. There may be a possibility, the complainant might have come across the damaged note from somewhere else and his conduct before the Commission belies his version. Assuming the version of the complainant as true, then the complainant suffered net loss of Rs.1500/- only in lieu of damaged notes and he admitted this fact in Para No.3 of the complaint in last part. On 06.12.2022, counsel for the opponent No.1 on behalf of the opponent No.1 as a goodwill gesture offered payment of Rs.3500/- to the complainant to compensate him, but the offer of the opponent No.1 state-forwardly declined by the complainant. This shows the complainant in fact is not interested to get him compensated. There may be some hidden agenda on the part of the complainant. Had the intention of the complainant bona fide, then he was not supposed to decline the offer of the opponent bank. Mere allegations of keeping of damaged notes in the ATM by the opponents cannot be considered substitute of the proof and there is not an iota of cogent and convincing evidence of any kind to say on relevant day, the damaged currency notes were kept either by the opponent No.1 or by the opponent No.2 in the ATM. The complaint is devoid on merits and is liable to be dismissed.

10.            Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is, dismissed, it being devoid on merits, leaving the parties to bear their own costs of litigations. The original damaged currency notes Ex.C7 to Ex.C9 which are on the record of this Commission are hereby ordered to be returned to the opponent No.1 through counsel against proper receipt and the opponent No.1 is directed to get the same destroyed as per rules/norms fixed by Reserve Bank of India.  

11.              Before parting with this order, it is pertinent to mention that the complaint has not been decided within the prescribed period of limitation of time. The history of the proceedings shows, taking into account pleading of the opponent No.1, the opponent No.2 was subsequently joined as necessary party in the case and this process took time and thereafter, complainant and the opponent No.1 consumer more than reasonable time for concluding evidence.  Apart from it, there is a shortage of manpower in the Commission such as Clerks and Stenos as well as requisite infrastructure, in proportionate to the overall pendency of the cases.

12.               File be consigned to the records.

 

Dated: 07.12.2022

 

 

                                                                               (Gulab Singh)

                                                                            District & Sessions Judge (VRS)

(Geeta Parkash)     (Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav)       President,

Lady Member.      (Member).                                 DCDRC, YNR.

 

         

Typed by: Jitender Sharma, Steno.