Delhi

North East

CC/193/2013

Neeraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

15 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: (NE)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR,

NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.193/13

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Neeraj W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate R/o D-218, Gali No. 5/2, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-94	Complainant
	Versus
	The Manager Punjab National Bank Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53.   The Manager, ATM Cell, HDFC Bank, Antriksh Bhawan, 9th Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Delhi-01.		Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	10.06.2013
	DATE OF DECISION      :	15.04.2016

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

 

Order

1.           The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is the holder of Savings Bank Account No.2256000101056565 with OP1 with ATM Card No.504884888017752179 and the husband of the complainant was often operating the ATM card under the instructions of the complainant.  It is stated that on 03.08.2012 at 16:18 hours the husband of the complainant operated the ATM card of complainant for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from HDFC ATM machine and again on the same day at 16:21 hours the husband of the complainant again inserted the ATM card in order to withdraw further sum of Rs.10,000/- but the ATM machine did not dispense any money at this time, however he awaited there for a considerable time.  After withdrawal of the said amount of Rs.10,000/- on 03.08.2012 complainant got the entry done in the passbook and came to know that amount of Rs.20,000/- was debited from the account of complainant and this fact was brought to the knowledge of OP1 who asked the complainant to approach the ATM Cell/OP 2 and complainant thereafter made a complaint to toll free number vide complaint No.58243311 dated 04.08.2012 but all in vain.  On 15.09.2012, the General Manager of OP1 assured the complainant that he will make enquiry by making email to OP2 and the matter will resolved very shortly.  The complainant approached OP1 time and again and on 22.01.2013 the complainant received a letter from OP1 wherein it was mentioned that the claim of the complainant has been rejected along with claim of one vakil Ansari.  It has been further stated that the letter dated 22.01.2013 sent by OP1 to complainant reflects that no enquiry has ever been conducted and the complainant has never been called in respect of the enquiry and neither the reason for rejection nor any enquiry report is attached with the letter.  The complainant made a written complaint on 06.04.2012 to concerned police station also.  The complainant prayed for refund of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, harassment suffered by the complainant. 
2.           Notice was issued to both the OPs.  OP1 did not chose to enter appearance though served, hence proceeded with ex parte on 08.05.2014.  OP2 filed its reply and took preliminary objection that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, devoid of merits and is an abuse of process of law; that the complainant has no privity of contract with OP2 and as such is not consumer of OP2 in terms of Section 2(i)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  On merits, OP2 has denied the fact that the transactions done on 16:18 hours on 03.08.2012 was successful and the transaction done at 16:21 hours was not successful and stated that the transaction made at 16:21 hours on 03.08.2012 vide transaction No.6280 was successful and complainant received Rs.10,000/- as is evidence from CBR sheet, Audit Trial, Log Report and Inter-Bank Switch Statement Report placed on the record.  It is further submitted that rest of the transaction 9281 to 9286 and 9288 were declined due to exceed withdrawal limit assigned to the card of the complainant.    It is further submitted that the complainant has never approached OP2 and no case of alleged deficiency in services is made out against OP2.
3.           Affidavit of evidence has been filed by the complainant and OP2.  Complainant has filed copy of complaint made to S.H.O. P.S. Jyoti Nagar on Exh. CW1/1, Legal Notice Exh. CW1/2, Reply of ATM Cell Exh. CW1/3, Intimation of not receiving the case to Punjab National Bank Exh. CW1/4, ATM Transaction Slip Exh. CW1/5 and Statement of Account of PNB Eh. CW1/6.  In support of its case OP2 filed CBR sheet, Audit Trial, ATM Log Report and Switch Settlement Report in support of case.  OP2 in its evidence has also filed statement of transactions done by the complainant on 03.08.2012 by Debit Card No.5048848888017752179 which are 8 in number from Transaction No.9280 to 9286 and 9288 and show that transaction NO.9280 was successful and other transactions were declined due to exceed withdrawal limit assigned to the card.  On the other hand, the complainant has filed statement of account of PNB Exh.CW1/6 which clearly shows that Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- were withdrawn by the complainant through ATM on 03.08.2012.  OP1 has not entered appearance though served to substantiate the allegation made by the complainant.
4.           The complainant has filed on record the letter dated 22.01.2013 (Ex. CW1/3) sent by the General Manager of PNB wherein it has been mentioned that the claim of complainant has been rejected alongwith the claim of Mohd. Vakil Ansari. The letter of General Manager is sufficient to prove that there was some error in the ATM machine due to which it is not only the complainant but one Mohd. Vakil Ansari also who made the complaint of not receiving the amount from ATM to the Bank.
5.           The complainant on getting the entry done in the passbook from OP1 was shocked to see the entry of debiting an amount of Rs. 20,000/- instead of debiting Rs. 10,000/- made a complaint to the OP1 as well as on toll free number and assurance of OP1 that the matter will be resolved very shortly as stated by the complainant in her complaint legal notice sent to OP1 and OP2 and in her affidavit by way of evidence the complainant kept as waiting but OP1 did not care to appear and rebut the allegation contained in the complaint. We have no other option but to allow the complaint and held OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- the amount debited from the account of the complainant on 3.8.2012 and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.
6.           All these amounts shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of failure, OPs shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. from the date of institution till realization.
7.           Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.           File be consigned to record room.
9.           Announced on     15.04.2016.          

 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member