Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/552

Meenu Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Snil Kapoor Rep.

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 552 of 02.08.2016

Date of Decision            :   17.01.2017 

 

Ms.Meenu Kapoor aged 42 years wife of Sh.Sunil Kapoor son of Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor, resident of Block-1, House No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001, Phone #0161-2440241, 2441258 through its Branch C.E.O.

2.Punjab National Bank, 7, Bhikhaiji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 through its Chairman/Managing Director.

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBMER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          Sh.Sunil Kapoor, Authorized Representative

For OPs                          :          Sh.Sarup Singh, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant, a Teacher by profession claims to be maintaining saving bank account No.0297000105488118 having customer ID AKL015182 with Ops since from March 2015. That account was opened with OP1 with initial amount of Rs.5000/- by submission of relevant documents duly acknowledged by the concerned quarters.  Complainant visited OP1 on 16.3.2015 at 4:00 PM for getting her passbook issued. That passbook was issued with incorrect and incomplete permanent mailing address of the complainant. Aadhar number as well as PAN number even was not reflected in the said passbook. Due to closing hours of OP bank, the discrepancies cannot be brought to the notice of the concerned on 16.3.2015. Those discrepancies were brought to the notice of Ops through email dated 17.3.2015. OP1 admitted about the pointed out discrepancies and called upon the complainant vide email dated 17.3.2015 to collect the fresh passbook with removed pointed out discrepancies. Branch of OP1 never expressed apology for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. Complainant suffered by visiting OP1 on 18.3.2015 at 3:55 PM after school hours. Even supplied passbook was not flawless. Complainant was provided with passbook, in which entry containing of Rs.5000/- was missing, despite the fact that the said amount was deposited in cash as initial money. That fact was brought to the notice of the concerned official and thereafter, C.E.O. Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain incorporated the manual entry qua that amount of Rs.5000/- with his initial. Complainant objected to the same and requested for providing computer generated entry. That official did not concede to the genuine request of the complainant and as such, complainant left with no other option except to lodge protest. Perusal of instructions contained in the passbook reveals that manual entry in the statement of account should not be incorporated. However, incorporation of the manual entry of Rs.5000/- alleged to be blatant act of violation of the guidelines/instructions issued by the Banking Authorities. So, by pleading adoption of unfair trade practice and restricted trade practice on the part of OPs, prayer made for directing Ops to issue a fresh computer generated passbook with no manual entry. Even directions sought for issue of passbook containing Aadhar Number and Pan number of the complainant. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.40,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- and exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- even sought.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1 and OP2 jointly, it is claimed that the complaint has been filed for unnecessarily harassing the officials of Ops,              despite the fact that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. No financial loss caused to the complainant, even if initial entry of deposit of Rs.5000/- was a manual one because the said entry was bearing the initial of the incumbent incharge of OP1 and was duly authenticated. Amount of Rs.5000/- was duly accounted for and carried out in the balance outstanding in the saving fund account of the complainant. So, complaint is not disclosing any cause of action. Admittedly, the complainant     opened the saving account on 14.3.2015 with OP1 by depositing the initial cash amount of Rs.5000/-. Admittedly, the complainant visited OP1 on 16.3.2015 at 4:00 PM for getting her passbook and the same was delivered. Complainant while receiving the said passbook did not point out any discrepancy in the passbook. After receipt of email dated 17.3.2015 from the husband of the complainant, reply was sent to the effect that Aadhar number and Pan Card details have already been added in the saving fund account and rectification of the address has been done in the computer system. Complainant through her husband was requested through email dated 17.3.2015 as to whether Aadhar number was to be linked for availing the benefit of LPG subsidy etc or not. Complainant was requested to collect the rectified passbook. There was no      need of expression of apology of any sort by OP1 because no inconvenience was caused to the complainant. Rather, verbal explanation was given to the complainant to her satisfaction during her visit on 18.3.2015. Complainant collected the new passbook by visiting office of OP1 in the evening of 18.3.2015. Computer system of the bank was slow/down and that is why the complainant was requested to come on another working day for collecting the passbook with computer generated entry. On insistence of the complainant, a manual entry of Rs.5000/- was incorporated in her passbook as referred above. The manual entries are restricted to avert any fraudulent entry by any third person. There is no legal bar in incorporating any manual entry. Deposited amount of Rs.5000/- has earned interest and as such, no cause of action has accrued to the complainant, particularly when subsequent computer generated entries incorporated in the passbook for handing over the same to the complainant. In case, complainant still insists for obtaining another passbook containing computer generated entry of initial deposit amount of Rs.5000/-, then OP1 is ready and willing to deliver the same on the day of filing of written statement itself. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Representative of complainant to prove the case of complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and then closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.DA of Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain, Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank along with documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 and then closed the evidence.

5                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments of representative of complainant and counsel for Ops heard and records gone through carefully.

6.                It is vehemently contended by representative of complainant that Aadhar number was missing in the passbook Ex.C1, though name of nominee mentioned. Deposit of Rs.5000/- in cash is entry incorporated on 14.3.2015. That is a computer generated entry as borne from the contents of Ex.C2. If Aadhar number in Ex.C1 is missing, then new passbook Ex.C3 has been given to the complainant with date of issue as 18.3.2015. So, after submission of email Ex.C5, Ops duly replied through Ex.C6 that discrepancy in address has been rectified. Name of nominee even mentioned in Ex.C3 and that copy of statement of account admittedly supplied to the complainant and that is why complainant has produced the verified true copies as Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 respectively. So, Ops virtually have done the needful by supplying the copy of Ex.C3 mentioning both Aadhar number and name of nominee.

7.                It is vehemently contended by the representative of complainant that in Ex.C4(part of Ex.C3), entry of deposit of Rs.5000/- on 14.3.2015 is manually incorporated and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops, particularly when at the footnote of Ex.C3 itself, it is mentioned that computer generated entries shown in the statement of account do not require any authentication/initial from bank official. Moreover, note is appended on the footnote of Ex.C3 that customer should not accept any manual entry in the computer generated passbook. This entry was incorporated by Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain,C.E.O is the claim of the complainant. Affidavit      of Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain as Ex.RA is thereon on record to show that on request of the complainant, a new passbook was issued with updated residential address of the complainant bearing her Aadhar number and PAN number. Affidavit Ex.DA of Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain also establishes that manual entry for the initial cash deposit entry in the passbook was incorporated after due authentication by him, being incumbent incharge of the branch. Complainant after being satisfied collected this passbook of her saving bank account is also stated by this witness Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain through affidavit Ex.DA. Reason for this manual entry was because the computer system was down or slow. As Ex.C4 contains the manual entry of Rs.5000/- against date 14.3.2015 with due authentication of the Chief Executive Officer of branch and as such, certainly no loss caused to the complainant by incorporation of this manual entry, particularly when this deposited amount of Rs.5000/- even earned the due interest as per rules. If the computer system was down or slow and the passbook was collected at 4:00 PM by the complainant, then Branch Manager did the right thing by incorporating authenticated entry qua deposit of amount of Rs.5000/- in the passbook Ex.C4. Nomination registration number is mentioned in passbook Ex.C8 along with Aadhar number and registered nomination number itself enough to reflect that nominee has been appointed by the operator of the account of passbook Ex.C8. So, if in Ex.C8, name of nominee not mentioned, then due to that alone, fault with Ops cannot be found, particularly when Ex.C8 issued on 27.10.2016 and the earlier passbooks Ex.C1 and Ex.C3 were issued on 16.3.2015 and 18.3.2015 respectively. These earlier passbooks Ex.C1 and Ex.C3 reflect the full name of the nominee as Sunil Kapoor. So, subsequent mention of the registered number of nominee in the passbook Ex.C8 of date 27.10.2016 is appropriate. So, grievance of the complainant virtually stood redressed by supplying her new passbook containing all the computer generated entries and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

8.                Submissions advanced by Sh.Sarup Singh, Advocate representing Ops in this respect has force that bank officials responded to the complaints lodged by the complainant through emails as disclosed by contents of Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 by issue of new passbook Ex.C3 and Ex.C8 and as such, complaint virtually filed without any cause of action. Merely, because a person has to visit the bank once or twice for getting the mistake rectified, due to that alone, his/her harassment cannot be inferred, particularly when account opening form Ex.D1 signed by the complainant bears the name of the nominee and even record of Aadhar Card in the shape of Ex.D2 available with the bank. As there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, complaint merits dismissal.

9.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

         

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

                                                Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                              Dated:17.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.