DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.291 of 07-07-2010 Decided on 16-05-2011
Kulwinder Singh, aged about 26 years son of Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh, village Ganga, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab National Bank, Nathana, through its Branch Manager. Punjab National Bank, Street No.7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066, through its MD/CMD/Chairman. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bank Bazar, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. HDFC Bank Limited, Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. Kuljeet Pal Sharma, counsel for opposite party Nos.1&2. Sh. Rajneesh Rampal, counsel for the opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.4 exparte. ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having an account No.0371000105065644 with the opposite party No.1. He has availed the facilities of ATM and the opposite parties issued an ATM No.512652xxxxxxx078 to the complainant. On 17.06.2010, an amount of Rs.24,000/- was lying in the account of the complainant and he inserted his ATM card in ATM machine of the opposite party No.1 for getting Rs.10,000/- but the ATM machine having no money in it. So, he on the suggestion of the opposite party No.1, approached the ATM machine of the opposite party No.3 and the card was inserted in the ATM machine of the Oriental Bank of Commerce but the card was blocked in the said ATM machine. The complainant immediately informed the madam sitting in the OBC Bank, about ATM card which is blocked in the ATM machine. The said official/madam gave another ATM card No.512652xxxxxxx645 by sending the bank employee to get it back from the ATM machine. She got the signatures of the complainant on the register maintained by the opposite party No.3 before handling over the ATM card. Thereafter, the complainant went to the Railway Station and used the ATM machine of the opposite party No.2 installed at the Railway Station but the card was again blocked and was not returned by the ATM machine nor the amount was withdrawn. Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, it told the complainant that his complaint will be entertain after 24 hours. The complainant made a complaint on toll free telephone No.1800-180-2222 and got the complaint No.30642073 on 18.06.2010. The complainant was shocked to see that an amount of Rs.24,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant on 17.06.2010 itself by withdrawing the amount of Rs.10,000/- each and Rs.4,000/- with the hanky panky of PNB Bank officials. The complainant immediately made a complaint to the bank officials but they did not take any action. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite party Nos.1&2 filed their joint written statement and pleaded that all the customers availing the facility of ATM card are also provided with the secret Password of respective ATM card for the use of ATM card and so that the ATM card may not be mis-used by any other person and the same can only be used after entering the Password of the ATM card. The customers including the complainant are bound to keep their Passwords secret from others in order to avoid the mis-use of ATM cards in case of loss. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have specifically denied that the aforesaid ATM card of the complainant has been mis-used with hanky panky of the officials of the opposite parties. The complainant has not given any information to the opposite parties or moved any application regarding the blockage of the ATM card on 17.06.2010 and the complainant for the first time approached the opposite parties on 18.06.2010 i.e. after withdrawal of amount from the ATM card through ATM machine installed in HDFC Bank Ltd. All the ATM cards issued to different persons can only be used with different Passwords. The complainant himself might have withdrawn the amount from the account and lateron filed the present false complaint. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have further pleaded that the complainant himself is responsible for the same who either could not keep his Password secret or has used the abovesaid ATM card himself for withdrawing the amount in question. 3. The opposite party No.3 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the opposite party No.3 in para No.3 on merit has not denied the fact that the complainant inserted the ATM card of the Punjab National Bank, in the ATM machine installed by the opposite party No.3 and the same was blocked. The said ATM card was inserted by the complainant in the ATM machine at 11.11 am on 17.06.2010. The complainant informed the opposite party No.3 regarding the blockage of ATM card on 17.06.2010, only one ATM card of Punjab National Bank was blocked in the ATM machine of the opposite party No.3 and the same was duly returned to the complainant by the opposite party No.3 after obtaining the signature of the complainant in the register maintained by the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 has specifically denied that the officials of the opposite party No.3 gave some another ATM card to the complainant. The alleged ATM card mentioned by the complainant was never given by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant. The opposite party Nos.1&2 can only reply to whom the alleged ATM card was issued and as per the record maintained by the opposite party No.3, no such ATM card was ever given to the complainant. The opposite party No.3 has further pleaded that the true facts are that the ATM card of the complainant was blocked in the ATM machine of the opposite party No.3 at 11.11 am on 17.06.2010 while the entire amount from the account of the complainant had already been withdrawn prior to the blockage of the said ATM card in the ATM machine i.e. prior to 11.11 am on 17.06.2010 and the complainant has intentionally concocted a false story of withdrawal of amount after the blockage of ATM card. The said amount had already been withdrawn by using the ATM card in the ATM machine installed in the premises of HDFC Bank Ltd., Bathinda and the officials of the HDFC Bank Ltd. can only reply who has withdrawn the amount after checking the same through CC Cameras. 4. The opposite party No.4 despite service of summon/notice has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.4. 5. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 6. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that Rs.24,000/- was lying in his account bearing No.0371000105065644 on 17.06.2010. The complainant inserted his ATM card No.512652xxxxxxx0 78 in ATM machine of the opposite party No.1 for getting Rs.10,000/- but the ATM machine having no money in it. On the suggestion of the opposite party No.1, the card was inserted in the ATM machine of Oriental Bank of Commerce but the card was blocked in the ATM machine who swallowed the ATM card. The complainant immediately informed the official/madam sitting in the OBC Bank about his ATM card which was blocked in the ATM machine. She gave another ATM card No.512652xxxxxxx645 by sending the bank employee to get it back from the ATM machine and she took the signatures of the complainant on the register maintained by the opposite party No.3 before handling over the ATM card. Thereafter, the complainant went to the Railway Station and used the ATM machine of the opposite party No.2 installed at the Railway Station but the card was again blocked and neither returned by the ATM machine nor the amount was withdrawn. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.1 showed his helplessness and told the complainant that his complaint would be entertained after 24 hours. The complainant made a complaint on toll free telephone No.1800-180-2222 and lodged complaint No.30642073 on 18.06.2010. The complainant was shocked to see that Rs.24,000/- was withdrawn from his account on 17.06.2010 itself by withdrawing the amount of Rs.10,000/- each and Rs.4,000/- with the hanky panky of the Punjab National Bank officials. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1&2 has submitted that all the customers availing the facility of ATM card are also given a secret Password for respective ATM card for the use of ATM card, as such, the ATM card issued to any person may not be mis-used by any other person and the same can only be used after entertaining the Password of the ATM card. The Customers including the complainant are bound to keep their Passwords secret in order to avoid the mis-use of ATM cards in case of loss. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have denied that the aforesaid ATM card of the complainant has been mis-used with hanky panky of the officials of the opposite party Nos.1&2. There was no information to the opposite party Nos.1&2 or any application moved by the complainant regarding the blockage of the ATM card on 17.06.2010 and the complainant for the first time approached the opposite parties on 18.06.2010 i.e. after withdrawal of amount from the ATM card through ATM machine installed in HDFC Bank Ltd. All the ATM cards issued to different persons can only be used with different Passwords issued to each and every customers holding ATM cards and no other person can mis-use the same rather it is the complainant himself who might have withdrawn the amount from the account and later on, filed the present false complaint. It is the duty of the complainant to keep his password secret. 9. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has submitted that the complainant inserted the ATM card of the Punjab National Bank in the ATM machine installed by the opposite party No.3 and the same was blocked. The said ATM card was inserted by the complainant in the ATM machine at 11.11 am on 17.06.2010. The complainant informed the opposite party No.3 regarding the blockage of ATM card. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has further submitted that on the said date i.e. 17.06.2010, only one ATM card of Punjab National Bank was blocked in the ATM machine of the opposite party No.3 and the same was duly returned to the complainant by the opposite party No.3 after obtaining his signatures in the register maintained by the opposite party No.3. As the record maintained by the opposite party No.3, no such ATM card was ever given to the complainant. The ATM card was blocked in the ATM machine of the opposite party No.3 at 11.11 am on 17.06.2010 when the entire amount from the account of the complainant had already been withdrawn prior to the blockage of the said ATM card in the ATM machine i.e. prior to 11.11 am on 17.06.2010 and the complainant has intentionally concocted a false story of withdrawal of amount after the blockage of ATM card. The said amount had already been withdrawn by using the ATM card in the ATM machine installed in the premises of HDFC Bank Ltd., Bathinda and the officials of the HDFC Bank Ltd. can only reply who has withdrawn the amount after checking the CC Cameras. 10. A perusal of Ex.C-2 shows the ATM ID No.B1346800 was used on 17.06.2010 at 12:04 pm, ATM card bearing No.512652xxxxxxx 645, the comments given at the bottom of this transaction is ’Unauthorized Card Usage’. This card has been used at ATM of Punjab National Bank, Railway Station i.e. opposite party Nos.1&2. The another card Ex.C-3 bearing ATM ID No.D1005000, Card No.512652xxxxxxx078 was used at 10:42 on 17.06.2010, it shows withdrawal Balance Rs.24,000/-. The complainant alleged that an amount of Rs.24,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant on 17.06.2010 by withdrawing the amount of Rs.10,000/- each and Rs.4,000/- in connivance by Punjab National Bank officials. One page of record register, produced by the opposite party No.3 vide Ex.C-6/Ex.R-8 shows that the complainant has lodged a complaint with the opposite party No.3 as his ATM card was blocked in the ATM machine on 17.06.2010 at 11:11 AM. The ATM Balance sheet dated 17.06.2010 Ex.R-4 shows the balance in the account of HDFC Bank. Further, a perusal of Ex.R-5 shows that on 17.06.2010 at 10:55 AM, Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn from the account of the complainant, again at 10:57 AM Rs.10,000 were withdrawn from his account and again at 10:58 AM, Rs.4,000/- were withdrawn from the same account of the complainant. The complainant has asked for the record of CC TV Cameras installed in the branch office in ATM of HDFC Bank but they have denied to give this record and certified that their CC Cameras in the branch of ATM has back up of last 3 months only. Since, the entry was pertaining to 17.06.2010 and more than 3 months old. They did not have any recording available for it and has provided the transaction record only. 11. The averments of the complainant are that when he used the ATM card for the first time on 17.06.2010 at opposite party No.1, his ATM card was blocked and no money was withdrawn as the ATM machine of the opposite party No.1 was having no money in it and on their suggestion, the complainant approached the ATM machine of the opposite party No.3 where the card was blocked in the said ATM machine and new card No.512652xxxxxxx645 was issued to the complainant and also took signatures of the complainant on register maintained by the opposite party No.3. Thereafter, the complainant approached the ATM machine of the opposite party No.2, installed at Railway Station but the ATM card was again blocked and no amount was withdrawn. The ATM card of the complainant has been blocked for 2 times and no money was withdrawn from ATM machine but the Account Statement shows that the whole money has been withdrawn on 17.06.2010 at 10:55 AM Rs.10,000/-, at 10:57 AM Rs.10,000/- and at 10:58 AM Rs.4,000/- i.e. within three minutes the whole amount was withdrawn, if the complainant wanted to withdraw the whole amount, he would have drawn in single transaction, but there is repeated use of the ATM card. 12. The opposite party No.3 admitted the fact that the ATM card of the complainant was blocked and the same was returned to him after getting his signatures. All the three above mentioned transactions were made with original card bearing No.512652xxxxxxx078, the card withdraw the money from the account of complainant but the ATM machine has not given the same to the complainant. As the opposite parties are having record of transaction, they must have record of CC TV cameras recordings but they have not produced before this Forum. The opposite parties have also failed to place on file any evidence regarding their pleadings that those recordings of the CC TV camera’s are deleted after 3 months. In such circumstances, the averments of the complainant seems to be true. 13. Hence, in light of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1to3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.4. The opposite party Nos.1&2 are directed to reverse the entry of Rs.24,000/- in the account of the complainant. The cost and compensation will be paid jointly and severally by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’
Pronounced in open Forum 16-05-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
| 
