Haryana

Karnal

MA/7/2022

Narinder Kumar Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

26 May 2022

ORDER

Narinder Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank

 

Present: Shri Pardeep Gupta, counsel for applicant/OP no.2..

           

             By this order we dispose of the application Under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 moved by the learned counsel for the applicant/OP no.2 with the averments that applicant/OP no.2 seeks the review of order dated 26.04.2022 passed by this Commission on the following grounds;-

“While disposing of the complaint, this Commission held that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant, which was not dispensed by the ATM machine of the applicant-OP no.2. As per version of the OP no.1, on receipt of complaint, they immediately took up the matter with the Bank’s Head office to take up the matter with the OP no.2 to inform the factual position about non-dispensing of cash but in the present case, OP no.1 has not received any message or money from the bank of applicant/OP no.2 whose ATM machine was used. OP no.2 has not responded the query of OP no.1 and has tried to shift its liability to OP no.1.

2.             Further, the abovesaid observation of this Commission, have been mentioned in the shape of pleadings by the OP no.1 in para no.1 of the preliminary objections of the written statement filed by it. Besides this, OP no.1 has also quoted the procedure laid down by Reserve Bank of India in case of non-dispensing of amount by ATM machine.

 3.            Further, if the pleadings of the OP no.1 are gone through carefully, it has been alleged by the OP no.1 that after receiving the complaint from the complainant, he immediately took up the matter with bank’s head office to take up the matter with State Bank of India to inform the factual position about non-dispensing of cash and to credit the alleged amount in the bank’s head office account in the account of the complainant.  The copies of emails exhibited by the OP no.1 as Ex.OP1/B and Ex.OP1/C shows that the said email were sent by the OP no.1 to its head office to take up the matter with State Bank of India. However, neither the OP no.1 nor its Head Office ever informed the OP no.2 or its Head office about non-dispensing of the amount by the ATM machine of the OP no.2. There is no record on the file which could prove that any communication was done by the OP no.1 or its Head Office with State Bank of India at any point of time regarding the matter in question. Had the OP no.1 or its Head office communicated the matter with State Bank of India, OP no.2 would have taken steps to return the amount in question to Punjab National Bank. It is further submitted that OP no.1 in it written version stated that he did not receive any message from State Bank of India at any point of time and on the other hand in the affidavit tendered by Senior Manager of OP no.1, it has been stated that State Bank of India whose ATM machine is used, had rejected the complaint of complainant and accordingly, OP no.2 did not pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The OP no.2 never rejected the complaint of complainant. Even going by the contents of complaint filed by the complainant, it is nowhere mentioned that he ever approached or informed the OP no.2 about non-dispensing of amount from the ATM machine, rather the contents of complaint proves that the complainant continued to agitate the matter with OP no.1.

4.             Further, in view of facts and circumstances, it is clear that neither the OP no.1 nor the complainant ever brought the fact of non-dispensing of amount, with OP no.2 at any point of time and OP no.2 throughout the period remained unaware of the same only came to know about the same for the first time when the complainant filed the present complaint and as such OP no.2 is not liable to pay the amount in question to the complainant. It is therefore, prayed that the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by this Commission may kindly be review in the interest of justice.

5.             Arguments heard on the application.

6.             As per version of the applicant, they have no knowledge about the non-dispensing of amount of Rs.10,000/- from  its  ATM machine. Thus, prayed for review the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by this Commission. As per section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission only shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order under reviewed has been passed by this Commission. There is no error apparent on the face of order dated 26.04.2022. Hence, the present application is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed.           

Dt: 25.05.2022

 

                                                                            President                                                                              

                                                                           DCDRC, Karnal.

 

                 Member(1)       Member (II)