Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/188

Navpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Singh Adv.

21 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:188 dated 21.09.2020.                                                         Date of decision: 21.12.2023.

 

Navpreet Singh, Aged 28 years, Advocate son of S. Sukhdev Singh, resident of House No.243, Street No.3, Mohalla Nanaksar, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana, c/o. Chamber No.536, 5^th Floor, Lawyers Chambers Complex, District Courts, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                       ...…Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Chowk Bharat Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, Head Office: Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, through its General Manager/Officer Incharge.

…...Opposite parties.

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Surinder Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. R.K. Chauhan, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant has been maintaining savings bank account No.0765000106724590 with OP1 bank. On 13.09.2019, the complainant paid school fee of his niece Kamaljit Kaur studying in Teja Singh Sutantar Senior Secondary School, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana online amounting to Rs.1125/-. According to the complainant, the first online transaction was made on 13.09.2019 at 09.46 AM which was failed and second transaction was made on 13.09.2019 at 10.25 AM which as confirmed. The complainant further stated that the amount of first afield transaction has not been credited into his account till date regarding which he lodged a complaint on toll free helpline No.18001802222 of the OPs within period of one week. However, the amount has not been credited despite elapse of six months approximately. The complainant claimed to have visited the branch of the OPs but the officials misbehaved with him which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant has suffered physical and mental pain, agony, harassment etc. and he is entitled to compensation. The complainant served a legal notice dated 03.03.2020 upon the OPs but no to no avail.  Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to credit the amount of Rs.1125/- into his account and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint, concealment of material facts;  non-joinder of necessary party etc. The OPs averred that it is the complainant who transferred online Rs.1125/- on 13.09.2019 and again transferred online Rs.1125/- second time on 13.09.2019. Both the transactions were successfully done and the above said amounts of Rs.1125/- each were transferred by the complainant through net banking. The OPs further stated that they have no involvement in the transactions done by the complainant directly through net banking. The complainant has not produced any evidence to establish the factum of failure of transaction done on 13.09.2019 at 09.46 AM and that the amount was not received by the school. The complainant has not made the said Teja Singh Sutantar Senior Secondary School Shimlapuri, Ludhiana as party who received the amounts.

                   On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of legal notice dated 03.03.2020, Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 are the copies of postal receipts, Ex. C4 is the copy of front page of passbook, Ex. C4/A is the copy of passbook showing transactions, Ex. C5 is the copy of screen shot of payment history and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Gurjit Singh Kainth, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. D1 is the certified copy of account statement and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

5.                The complainant, an Advocate by profession, raised a grievance that on 13.09.2019, the transaction made at 09.46 AM for payment of school fee of his niece was aborted and the amount of Rs.1125/- was not credited to his bank account. However, the second transaction made by him at 10.25 AM was successful. The OPs have categorically stated along with the documentary evidence in the form of statement of account that both the transactions of Rs.1125/- each were successful and the said amounts were duly transferred to the beneficiary.  Perusal of statement of account Ex. C4 and Ex. C4/A as well as Ex. D1 shows that on 13.09.2019 both transactions of Rs.1125/- each were successful. However, the complainant relied  upon one screen shot of payment history Ex. C5 whereby two transactions one on 09.11.2029 and second on 13.09.2019 have been shown but there is not recital of transaction being labeled as ‘Failed’. In order to prove his case, the complainant was required to adduce evidence from the beneficiary school that the school authorities have not received the payment of fees twice and only one entry was credited to their account. The complainant has also not impleaded Teja Singh Sutantar Senior Secondary School, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana who was a necessary and proper party which could have unfolded the true facts before this Commission. There is no document in the shape of representation or any Email on record which could show that the factum of deduction was immediately brought to the notice of the officials of the OPs. Legal notice Ex. C1 was served on the OPs on 03.03.2020 i.e. after the elapse of about six months. As such, the complainant has failed to discharge his initial burden of proving deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7.                In this regard, reference can be made to SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held as under:-

’19.  The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

In the above cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has placed reliance on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. whereby it has been held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent.”

‘20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544) held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under:-

“28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”

In the given facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by any cogent and convincing evidence.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (SanjeevBatra) Member                        Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.12.2023.

Gobind Ram.