Haryana

StateCommission

A/753/2017

PANKAJ VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

29 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

                                                First appeal No.753 of 2017

Date of the Institution: 22.06.2017

Date of Decision: 29.01.2019

 

Pankaj Verma s/o Sh. Shri Sehdev Verma, R/o Village Shahzadpur,Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      Punjab National Bank, Shahzadpur Branch, Tehsil Naraingarh,Distt. Ambala, through its Branch Manager.

2.      Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sehdev Verma father of the appellant in person.

Mr.Ashish Rawal, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      It is alleged by the complainant that he opened his bank account with the O.P.No.1 and was having ATM card in his name.  On 02.04.2012 at about 10.05 P.M., he received three messages for withdrawal of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4,000/- on his mobile.  He contacted branch Manager but the same was not heard the complaint of the complainant.  The complainant submitted application dated 04.04.2012 and 09.04.2012 with the O.ps., but, nothing was done by O.P.No.1.  The O.P.No.1 wrongly deducted Rs.17,000/- from the bank account of complainant.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the O.P. Nos.1 and 2- bank by filing their written reply before the District Forum, in which, O.Ps.1 and 2 alleged that complainant himself through someone used the ATM card and withdraw the disputed amount from ATM machine of State Bank of India-O.P.No.3.  He used the ATM card on 02.04.2012 and withdrawn the amount.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2.

4.      O.P.No.3 filed separate reply and alleged that the complainant withdrawn Rs.17,000/-  on 02.04.2012 by using the ATM of O.P.No.3.  He was not entitled to recover the amount.  Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, suppression of material facts. etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 25.04.2017.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      The argument have been advanced by Mr.Sehdev Verma father of the appellant in person as well as Mr.Ashish Rawal, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2. With their kind assistance the entire records of the appeal as well as District Forum record had been properly perused and examined.

8.      As per the basic averment taken in the complaint and the reply filed thereto including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the basic and foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission  as well as the learned District Forum was that, the present complainant-appellant is entitled to recover the amount from either of the bank arrayed as Respondents or he has not entitled for the disputed amount or there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

9.      As per the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and the rival contentions raised on behalf of the respondents, it is true that  the bank account No.6398000100000997 of the appellant maintained at Punjab National Bank, Branch office Sehzadpur Branch-O.P.No.1, the amount of the complainant-appellant was debited three times within few minutes.  As per the details of the account, the amount has been debited by using the ATM card. 

10.    Contrary to it, it is the version of the appellant that he is never used his ATM, even the matter was reported to the police and as per the DDR produced on behalf of the appellant, no footage was available in the CCTV  and as such, it cannot be pointed out that as to how the amount has been withdrawn.  It is matter of grave concern that when the amount has been debited whereas appellant is having the ATM card, the ATM card has been used thrice and obviously it is quite possible that the amount has been withdrawn by the appellant himself.  The opposite party No.3 who is installed the ATM, where the ATM card was used can also not be held responsible for the deficiency in service.  In view of the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents  tilted as Raghabendra Nath Sen and another Vs. Punjab National Bank 2015 (1) CPJ 254, The O.P.Nos.1 and 2 are also not responsible for any kind of deficiency in service and as such, while dismissing the complaint, no illegality committed by the learned District forum, Ambala and resultantly appeal being devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

 

January  29th, 2019                                 Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.