Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/107/2020

Mr. Davinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Sapna Vasudeva

27 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	107 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	11.02.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	27.09.2022

 

 

 

 

Davinder s/o Sh.Mohan, House No.333, Khudda Lahora, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

Versus

Punjab National Bank, Sector 17-B, PNB House, Chandigarh 160017 through its Manager.

    ….. Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER 

                                                        

 

 

For Complainant :    Sh.Sapna Vasudeva, Advocate

For OP(s0       :     Sh.Ajay Sapehia, Advocate

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant is having Savings Bank Account No.0087001700001840 with OP bank since 2013 (Ann.C-1).  It is stated that on 16.10.2019, the complainant received two SMS one after another about debit of Rs.9996/- and Rs.40,000/- through net banking, leaving balance of Rs.5041/- in his account (Ann.C-2).  It is submitted that the complainant was shocked to received such SMS as he did not made any such transaction and on getting his passbook updated, it shows debit of Rs.9996/- in favour of Olacabs.com and second debit of Rs.40,000/- in favour of IDFC Bank (Ann.C-3).  The complainant immediately lodged his complaint about said illegal transaction/debit from his account with customer care of OP Bank and it was registered vide Sr.No.M159936588 (Ann.C-4).  Thereafter, the complainant also reported this matter with police authority, Cyber Crime Branch as well as Banking Ombudsman (Ann.C-5 to C-7).  It is submitted that Banking Ombudsman, RBI finally gave decision in favour of the complainant validating his claim vide order dated 11.12.2019, which was also brought to the notice of the OP Bank, but still the OP kept on lingering the matter on one pretest or other and did not refund the amount to the complainant (Ann.C-9 & C-10).  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.

 

2]       The OP Bank has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that as per internal investigation, it has been transpired that account holder/complainant had disclosed secret card, code, OTP etc. and the alleged withdrawals have been made by the beneficiary based on information disclosed by the complainant, so he is not entitled for reimbursement of amount which has been withdrawn on his instructions etc.  It is stated that the order of Banking Ombudsman dated 11.12.2019 stated that beneficiary bank will refund the amount to PNB but since the beneficiary bank had not refunded a single penny to OP Bank, so there is no question of crediting the amount in the account of complainant. It is submitted that despite order of Ombudsman, complainant did not implead Olacabs.com and IDFC Bank as party to the case.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations of the complaint, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.          

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.

 

5]       From the perusal of the record and evidence, it is made out that the complainant alleged two wrong debit entries in his account with OP Bank i.e. Rs.9996/- in favour of Olacabs.com and Rs.40,000/- in favour of IDFC Bank. 

 

6]       It is clear from record that the OP bank has credited an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the account of the complainant after being returned by the beneficiary i.e. IDFC Bank.  The OP Bank has also stated that as and when an amount of Rs.9996/- would be received from the beneficiary company the same will be credited in the account of the complainant. Here, it is important to mention that the complainant has not impleaded Olacabs.com as opposite party to the present complaint, which should have been done by the complainant.  We are of the opinion that both the transactions under dispute had presumably been done by the complainant himself but still on the complaint of complainant, the OP Bank credited one of the amount of Rs.40,000/- in the account of complainant after receipt from the beneficiary bank/IDFC bank and another disputed amount of Rs.9996/- would also be credited in his account if received from beneficiary company. Hence, no deficiency in service is attributable towards OP.    

 

7]       Taking into consideration the above finding, facts & circumstance of the case, we are of the opinion that no case of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against the Opposite Party. Therefore, the present complaint, being without any merit, is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.          

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. 

Announced                                                     

27^th September, 2022                                                Sd/-         

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (B. M. SHARMA)

MEMBER