Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/53

Mewa Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind Kumar Rishi

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

 

                                                                   Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2022

                                                                   Date of Decision:  31.03.2023

 

Mewa Singh aged about 67 years son of Sh. Dial Singh, resident of Village Malikpur, Tehsil  & District Rupnagar  

                                                                                       …..Complainant

                                                 Versus

Punjab National Bank, Branch Nalagarh, District Solan, through its Branch Manager 

(Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act)

QUORUM:

 

                   KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

                   RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

 

For complainant:            Sh. Arvind Kumar Rishi, Advocate

For OP:                          Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Wadhaun, Advocate    

         

 ORDER

PER KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the averments that the OP is providing services of banking to the complainant as well as other general public. OP is a bank runs its business for the purpose of banking and having its branch office at Ropar. The complainant is proprietor of Firm M/s Perfect Fabrication and Engineering Limited, VPO Malikpur, District Rupnagar. Complainant has a current account of his firm at Punjab National Bank, Branch Nalagarh, District Solan (HP) with which the complainant used to make his financial transaction. On 16.12.2020 a firm namely Symplex Metal Processor situated at Indore transferred of Rs.3,36,634.55/- in the account of the complainant bearing No.2721002100016004 and when the complainant inquired about the same from OP and it was shocked that no amount was credited in account of complainant by the OP and on the other working day the complainant approached the bank authorities i.e. Op and it came into his knowledge that no amount was credited in his account. Thereafter, the complainant immediately reported the matter to PNB customer care at 2.30 AM and the official of the customer care gave assurance to the complainant that amount in question was lying with the OP and the same will be credited in account of complainant within two or three hours and after lapsing time the complainant got received a message on his phone that the amount in question was credited in his account. It is further averred that after crediting the amount in question in account of complainant, within a few hours total amount of Rs.3,27,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant by 16 transactions without the consent, knowledge or intention of the complainant and only amount of Rs.10,000/- which was left behind, withdrawn by complainant through ATM laeron. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint regarding bank fraud to the customer care and customer care registered 16 complaints regarding unauthorized withdrawal from the account of the complainant vide different complaint numbers. The complainant approached the Branch Manager of OP at Nalagarh at very next working day and disclosed him the entire episode of fraud. The OP assured him that they will lodge complaint to head office and assured him that his grievance will be redressed within one week. But after lapsing more than one month neither any intimation nor any action was taken by the OP or their official in this regard. An FIR No.11 dated 4.1.2021 under Section 420 IPC, PS Baddi, District Solan was lodged in this concern on the complaint of the complainant.  Due to this act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental, physical and monetary loss. The complainant sought the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. To pay withdrawn amount of Rs.3,27,000/- and further OP be ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages on account of mental agony and physical harassment.

2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest @ 18% per annum on the whole amount till its realization.

2. Upon notice, OP has appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections; that the complainant is not a consumer for the answering OP; that the present complaint is time barred; that the complainant does not disclose any deficiency in service or irresponsible act on the part of the answering OP; that the answering OP has already maintained the highest standard of professional conduct in the provisions of services in the State of Punjab and Himachal; that the allegations made by the complainant are not sustainable, enough to prove that there is any deficiency in services on behalf of answering OP; that no cause of action has ever arose in favour of the complainant and against the answering OP; that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable; that the complaint does not qualify the ingredients of valid complaint, as envisaged in Section 2 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act; that the present complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is admitted that on 16.12.2020 a firm namely Symplex Metal Processor situated at Indore transferred an amount of Rs.3,36,634.55/- in the account of the complainant. It is denied that complainant inquired about the same from the answering OP and it was shocking that no amount was credited in the account of the complainant by the answering OP. It is also denied that on other working day complainant approached the bank authority i.e. answering OP and it came into the knowledge that no amount was credited in his account. No transaction has been made through the bank PNB branch, Nalagarh, rather all the transaction has been done with phone and with the mode of online payment. Rest of allegations levelled by the complainant against the answering OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. 
3.  In order to prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit of Sh. Subash Lohat, Senior Manager, Ex.OP1 along with copy of authority letter Ex.OP3, I Card Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the complaint file along with documents very minutely.
5. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant is having account with the Ops. The complainant submitted in his complaint that on 16.12.2020 a firm namely Symplex Metal Processor situated at Indore transferred of Rs.3,36,634.55/- in the account of the complainant bearing No.2721002100016004 and when the complainant inquired about the same from OP and it was shocked that no amount was credited in account of complainant by the OP and on the other working day the complainant approached the bank authorities i.e. Op and it came into his knowledge that no amount was credited in his account. Thereafter, the complainant immediately reported the matter to PNB customer care at 2.30 AM and the official of the customer care gave assurance to the complainant that amount in question was lying with the OP and the same will be credited in account of complainant within two or three hours and after lapsing time the complainant got received a message on his phone that the amount in question was credited in his account. It is further averred that after crediting the amount in question in account of complainant, within a few hours total amount of Rs.3,27,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant by 16 transactions without the consent, knowledge or intention of the complainant and only amount of Rs.10,000/- which was left behind.
6. On the other hand, the main objection of the opposite party No.1 is that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant has lodged FIR under Section 420 IPC.  The OP also stated that no transaction has been made through the bank PNB branch, Nalagarh, rather all the transaction has been done with phone and with the mode of online payment.
7. In view of the objections of the opposite parties, in our view to decide the present matter detailed evidence is required by way of summoning the concerned witnesses and through their cross examination. Further, in the present complaint voluminous evidence of bank transactions required and complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present matter which can only be adjudicated upon in the Civil Court. 
8. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Bright Transport Company Versus SangliSahakari Bank Limited reported in II (2012) CPJ-151 (NC) held as under.-

“Consumer Protection Act, ……….Banking and Financial Institutions Services-  Jurisdiction- Cheque- Encashment against forged signature- Negligence- Deficiency in service alleged- Consumer-  Complaint- Maintainability- Complaints which are based on  allegations of fraud, forgery etc and trial of which would  require voluminous evidence and consideration are not to be  entertained by this Commission- This complaint is an attempt  to misuse jurisdiction of this Commission only with a view to  save on Court fee payable in a suit before civil Court-  Complaint not maintainable.”

9. This citation of the Hon'ble Commission is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint as in the allegations of complainant that said amount withdrawn from the account of complainant by way of fraud which means that complainant himself admitted that the present matter is a case of fraud and in the light of above citation in fraud cases voluminous evidence is required for which the complainant must approach the Civil Court. 
10. In view of above discussion and citation of Hon'ble National Commission, the present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission. No order as to costs or compensation. However, the complainant is advised to approach the appropriate Civil Court to redress his grievance, if he so desire. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:31.03.2023

 

 

 

 

                                      (Ramesh Kumar Gupt                  (Ranvir Kaur)                           (Kuljit Singh)

                                                     Member                                 Member                                     President