Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/57/2016

Naresh Shah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

 

                     Consumer Complaint No.  57 of 04.07.2016

                      Date of Decision             :   18.09.2017

 

 

Naresh Shah S/o Sh.Chandeshwari Shah, R/o Ward No.5, Balachaur, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr.                                                                                                               ….Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab National Ban, Bhaddi Road, Balachaur, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr, through its Manager.
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce, College Road, Roop Nagar, through its Manager.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

cOUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant   :         Sh.Naresh Shah – in person.

For OP No.1        :         Ex parte.

For OP No.2        :         Sh.Nobel Sareen, Advocate

 

QUORUM:

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ORDER

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by complainant wherein it is alleged that complainant is permanent customer of the OP No.1 – Punjab National Bank and having saving bank account No.3420000103059894 and also got one ATM card which he is using as such he is customer of OPs.  On 23.05.2016, the complainant used the ATM card No.512652XXXXXX4715 at the ATM machine of OP-2 at College Road, Roopnagar and wherefrom, he swapped card for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and accordingly message was received for debited the amount in his account but the said amount did not come out from the ATM.  Whereas, the said amount was debited from his said account.  He waited there about 20 minutes but the amount did not come out from ATM machine and in the meanwhile one other person came for using the ATM for checking of balance.  After 20 minutes, he went to OP-2 and gave complaint who gave helpline number and complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.MO60655036 dated 27.05.2016 and he was assured that his matter will be solved within 7 days.  After 7 days, he approached OP-1 but who gave reply that your complaint has been lodged and you have to wait for 7 days more and after 7 days, then OP-1 told that they called the video-graphy recording from OP-2 and you have to wait.  But neither video graphy recording received from OP-2 nor any justice was given to the complainant and as such there is deficiency in services on the part of OPs.  Hence, instant complaint filed with prayer that complaint of the complainant be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant and further prayed that OPs be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.30,000/- as litigation to the complainant.     
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs.  But despite service OP-1 did not come, hence proceeded against ex parte, whereas, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the OP has not been properly sued as the Head Office and Local Head Office of the OPs has not been sued.  On merits, para No.1&2 of the complaint denied for want of knowledge.  Para No.3 is admitted that complainant has operated the ATM of OP-2 and made withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- which is as per record of replying OP was a successful transaction and amount was rightly deducted from the account of the complainant and it was shown in the ATM at 02:29:22 PM.  If the said transaction was not a successful transaction, in that case, the ATM machine should have delivered a slip for unsuccessful entry, non production of the slip of transaction by the complainant is presumed that the entry was successful one and the complainant has filed a false complaint.  It is also admitted that after the transaction of the complainant another persons have also used the ATM machine and all the entries were successful and also admitted that  complainant was lodged a complaint with OP-2 on 23.05.2016 and replying OP-2 after verifying the ATM, vide their reply dated 27.05.2016, informed that entry was successful and no extra amount has been found in ATM, with respect to said transaction.  It appears that complainant has lodged false complaint against replying OP and other averments of the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that complaint of the complainant is without merits and  liable to be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case, complainant himself has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2  has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Mohan, Branch Manager Ex.OP2/A alongwith documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/6 and one affidavit of Ravinder Mohan Ex.OP2/A alongwith CD Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.2 and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
6. After hearing arguments of the respective parties and going through the case, it become clear that the factum in regard to saving bank account with bank of OP is admitted fact because complainant has brought on file photocopy of passbook Ex.C-1 and also brought his affidavit Ex.CW1/A.  Apart from above, the complainant has also brought on file the transaction slip Ex.C-2.  OP-2 while appearing in Forum filed reply and admitted that the complainant was used the ATM machine of the OP but alleged that said transaction is successful.  In order to prove that the said transaction is successful, the OP has brought on the file CCTV footage, which is Ex.OP2/1 but this evidence of the OP is not controverted by the complainant in any manner and moreover the OP is also alleged that the amount of the ATM account for and no excess amount found there.  As such transaction of the complainant was admitted as successful but in order to prove that transaction was not successful, the complainant has not brought on record any cogent evidence.  Under these circumstances, we find that the transaction of the complainant was successful and there is no merits in the present complaint, therefore, complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
7. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 18.09.2017                                                         

 

                                     

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President