Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2021 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that the complainant firm is having current account bearing No. 0298002100080288 with Opposite Party No.1 bank. Further alleges that on 6.7.2017, the complainant received a message that a sum of Rs.94,639.98 paisa have been deducted from the above said account of the complainant. The complainant immediately approached the Opposite Party No.1 on the same day, but the official of Opposite Party No.1 told that the server of the bank is not working, so necessary details can not be provided regarding the said transaction. On the very next day, the complainant again approached the Opposite Party No.1 bank and the employee of the bank told that the said transactions are done by ATM on the intervening night of 5/6 July 2017 from which a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been transferred in the account of one Vikram Kumar Sunar from Delhi. But the complainant told that the ATM is in his possession and he never used his ATM for the above said fraudulent transactions. The complainant also blocked his ATM and freezed the account of said Vikram Kumar Sunar. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint vide E-mail to Cyber Cell, Ludhiana who forwarded the same to DSP Ludhiana on which an FIR bearing No. 206 under section 420, 479 dated 01.09.2017 at P.S.Model Town, Ludhiana has been registered, but till date, the complainant did not get any response from the Opposite Parties. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for causing huge mental and physical agony.
b) To pay the litigation costs of Rs.22,000/-
c) To pay Rs.94,639.98 paisa alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of fraudulent transaction till the date of actual realization or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the complainant has already submitted letter of subrogation, wherein he relinquished all his rights to claim anything more than what he has received. Said letter of subrogation dated 18.10.2017 was signed by the complainant in the presence of marginal witnesses at 3:30 PM as such, in view of the said letter of subrogation, the present complaint stands to be dismissed. On receiving the application from the complainant, the matter was immediately taken up with New India Assurance Company Limited who is the official insurer of bank with regard to ATM transactions and as the complainant has already signed the letter of subrogation and an amount of Rs.84,620/- was received by him. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, and Ex.C2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ex.RA alongwith copy of document Ex.RW1 and Ex.RW2 and close the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainants as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statement respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The case of the complainant is that complainant firm is having current account bearing No. 0298002100080288 with Opposite Party No.1 bank. Further alleges that on 6.7.2017, the complainant received a message that a sum of Rs.94,639.98 paisa have been deducted from the above said account of the complainant. The complainant immediately approached the Opposite Party No.1 on the same day, but the official of Opposite Party No.1 told that the server of the bank is not working, so necessary details can not be provided regarding the said transaction. On the very next day, the complainant again approached the Opposite Party No.1 bank and the employee of the bank told that the said transactions are done by ATM on the intervening night of 5/6 July 2017 from which a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been transferred in the account of one Vikram Kumar Sunar from Delhi. But the complainant told that the ATM is in his possession and he never used his ATM for the above said fraudulent transactions. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties time and again but to no affect. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant has already submitted letter of subrogation, wherein he relinquished all his rights to claim anything more than what he has received. Said letter of subrogation dated 18.10.2017 was signed by the complainant in the presence of marginal witnesses at 3:30 PM as such, in view of the said letter of subrogation, the present complaint stands to be dismissed. On receiving the application from the complainant, the matter was immediately taken up with New India Assurance Company Limited who is the official insurer of bank with regard to ATM transactions and as the complainant has already signed the letter of subrogation and an amount of Rs.84,620/- was received by him. Perusal of the letter of subrogation Ex.RW1 duly signed by Sh.Maninder Singh, of K.L.Industries, the complainant shows that vide this letter, the complainant firm has already and mentioned that by virtue of said letter of subrogation, the payment of underwriter concerned became subrogated to all their rights, interest and remedies in respect of the subject matter in accordance with the laws governing the contract of insurance and this letter has nowhere denied by the complainant by filing and cogent and convincing evidence. As such, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties because the complainant has already given all the rights vide this letter to make the payment upto the extent of Rs.94,500/-.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint stands dismissed. All pending applications are disposed off accordingly. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
