Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/227/2014

Mast Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	227/2014
Date of Institution	:	01.05.2014
Date of Decision	:	29/01/2015

 

                  

                                                         

 

Mast Ram s/o Late Ram Surat r/o H.No.2, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh

 

                                      ..Complainant.

Versus

1.      Punjab National Bank, through its Manager, Customer Care Division, H.O.5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

 

2.      Punjab National Bank, through its Branch Manager, SCO No.23-24, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh-160019.

 

3.      S.B.I. ATM IFSC Code 02588 at Nawab Ganj District  Gonda (U.P.).

 

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:  Complainant in person.

                   Ms.Meena Malhotra, Advocate for OPs No.1 and 2.

                   Sh.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for OP No.3

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is maintaining an A/c No. 0583000101109563 of the Punjab National Bank. On 01.03.2014, he operated the ATM (Automated Teller Machine) at Nawab Ganj at District Gonda (UP) at SBI ATM IFSC Code 02588. According to the complainant, on 01.03.2014 he withdrew Rs.10000/- at the first attempt but he could not withdraw the same at the second attempt as the ATM Machine had jumped operation whereas a sum of Rs.5,000/- were withdrawn by him at the third attempt.  On enquiry, it was informed to the complainant that a sum of Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn by him on 01.03.2014 when he operated the ATM Machine.   He made a complaint to the customer care vide complaint No.61238197 on 04.04.2014. Subsequently he also wrote a letter dated 11.04.2014, Annexure C-2 to the Manager of the Punjab National  Bank, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh with a request to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- wrongly deducted from the ATM machine on 01.03.2014, which was replied vide mail, Annexure C-3. It was further stated that the complainant was being made to suffer on account of default of the ATM machine and the Opposite Parties were fully responsible for the same. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the instant complaint.
2.           In their written statement, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 - Punjab National Bank stated that  as per the information received from State Bank of India, all the three transactions made by the complainant at 10:03, 10:05 and  10:06  through ATM on 01.03.2014 were successful and the amount of Rs.10,000/- was also received by the complainant at the second attempt. It was denied that the complainant did not get the money as alleged in the complaint.  It was further stated that after receiving the JP log from Opposite Party No.3, the complainant was informed through his brother vide letter dated 01.05.2012 that his claim was rejected. A copy of the letter and relevant page of the dispatch register showing the signature of the brother of the complainant are Annexures R-2 and R-3.  Rest of the averments made in the complaint were denied, being false. According to the answering Opposite Parties, there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserved to be dismissed.
3.           In its separate written statement, Opposite Party No.3-State Bank of India stated that on 01.03.2014 the complainant used the ATM  Machine of OP No.3 continuously on three occasions with short intervals  i.e. firstly at 10:03  and successfully withdrawn Rs.10,000/-, secondly at 10:05 and successfully withdrawn Rs.10,000/- and  lastly at 10:06  and successfully withdrawn Rs.5,000/- vide proper computerized receipt Nos.4586, 4587 and 4588 respectively dated 01.03.2014.  It was further stated that the statement of withdrawal of the amounts on the said date through ATM machine of the Bank showed the successful withdrawal of the above mentioned amounts by the complainant.  It was further stated that the cash of the ATM machine was also got verified and the same was not found in excess on that day i.e. 01.03.2014.  The ATM Machine receipts dated 01.03.2014, statement of withdrawal of the amounts in question from the ATM machine by the complainant and the certificate issued by the Bank in respect of the verification of the excess amount of Rs.10000/- in the ATM machine on the relevant date were also annexed with the written statement.  It was further stated that the claim of the complainant was thoroughly processed in accordance with the Rules and it informed Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 about the fact that the cash was successfully dispensed with from the ATM machine to the card holder and a valid ATM log was also provided.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, the prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.           We have heard the complainant, in person, Counsel for the Opposite Parties and have gone through the documents on record as well as the written arguments.
6.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the complainant himself operated the ATM Machine of Opposite Party No.3-Bank on 01.03.2014 thrice.    For the sake of arguments, if it is admitted that second attempt of the complainant for withdrawing the sum of Rs.10,000/-  from the ATM machine of the State Bank of India remained unsuccessful and the ATM receipt showing the attempt of the complainant successful even then he should have approached the Opposite Parties regarding non-withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from the said ATM machine immediately or at least within a period of a week.  However, as per the version of the complainant himself, he made the complaint to Customer Care vide complaint No.61238197 on 04.04.2014 i.e. after about a month, which itself casts a serious doubt. It is not understood as to what was the hitch for the complainant to make the complaint immediately regarding non-withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- at the second attempt by the ATM machine.  Moreover, the complainant must have in possession of the ATM Receipts   generated by the ATM machine when he operated the ATM machine of the State Bank of India and he could have produced the same in order to substantiate his version as made in the complaint, but he did not.   On the other hand, the Opposite Parties in order to prove their stand have placed on record the ATM Machine generated slips at  Annexure OP-3/1 which shows that a sum of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- were withdrawn by the complainant within a short intervals from the ATM Machine of the State Bank of India.   The Branch Manager of the State Bank of India  vide certificate dated 13.06.2014 (Annexure OP-3/2) had certified that there was no excess cash found in ATM S10A002588001 on 01.03.2014 and physical balance and admin balance was being tallied.  It is further evident from the ATM Log entries placed, on record, as Annexure OP-3/3 by the Opposite Party No.3 that a sum of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- against RR No.4586, 4587 and 4588 respectively pertaining to the ATM Card No.5126520191905053  and Account No.0583000101109563 were successfully withdrawn by the complainant.   The authenticity and genuineness of the documents i.e. Annexures OP-3/1 to OP-3/3 produced by the Opposite Parties have not been disputed.  The complainant has, thus, failed to make any case of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7.           For the reasons record above, finding the complaint to be devoid of any substance and merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
8.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29/01/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

 

cmg

 

​