Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/950/2019

Rajmal Paul Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/950/2019
Date of Institution	:	19/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	03/10/2022

 

Rajmal Paul Rana s/o Sh. Piyare Lal Rana r/o 5 Signal Battl. CRPF, Hallomajra, UT, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Punjab National Bank, Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Monika Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ramdarbar, Phase II, UT, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Ashish Rawal, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Rajmal Paul Rana, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant, who was serving in the CRPF and posted in Chandigarh, had transferred an amount of ₹30,000/- in account No.0243008700012353 (hereinafter referred to as PNB account) of Sonika Jewellers at Joginder Nagar, District Mandi (HP) on 11.8.2018, which was maintained with OP-1/bank. The said amount was transferred through his ATM card issued by OP-2/bank and the amount was debited from his account No.30300671226 (hereinafter referred to as SBI account). However, when aforesaid Sonika Jewellers was contacted, complainant was informed that the amount had not been credited in its PNB account which fact was also endorsed by the said banker. On the other hand, the banker of the complainant i.e. OP-2 issued its report that the aforesaid transaction was made successfully in the PNB account of Sonika Jewellers. Thereafter the complainant contacted OP-1/bank with the request to verify the said amount, but, no satisfactory response was received by the complainant from them. The complainant had also made a complaint to RBI on 4.2.2019.  Due to aforestated negligence on the part of OPs, complainant had suffered mental agony and harassment. Accordingly, OPs were requested several times to look into the grievance of the complainant, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, non-joinder of necessary party and concealment of facts. On merits, alleged that M/s Sonika Jewellers vide its letter dated 26.8.2019 had wrongly stated that there was no transaction of ₹30,000/- on 11.8.2018.  It is further alleged that in addition to the complainant’s transaction of ₹30,000/- there were other similar POS transactions of M/s Sonika Jewellers with other persons and all the transactions were settled collectively on 16.8.2018 and amount of ₹64,948.84 including complainant’s amount of ₹30,000/- was credited to the PNB account of M/s Sonika Jewellers on 17.8.2018 and the relevant extract of the account of M/s Sonika Jewellers is OP-1/1.   It is further alleged that when the complainant raised grievance with OP-2/bank, the issue was duly examined and OP-1 created a charge-back in the account of M/s Sonika Jewellers to the extent of ₹30,000/- on 30.8.2018 and the same was refunded to it on 7.3.2019, which fact is also clear from OP-1/2 and OP-1/3.  It is further alleged that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 and the complainant has filed a frivolous consumer complaint.  It is further alleged that the consumer complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied. The consumer complaint is sought to be contested. 
3. OP-2 was properly served and when it did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 6.12.2019.
4. In his rejoinder the complainant has re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint. The complainant has admitted that the aforesaid amount of ₹30,000/- has already been credited in his account by OP-1/bank in the month of April 2020 which fact was informed to him by representative of OP-1/bank. It is denied that the complainant has concealed any fact.  Prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed and he be awarded harassment charges/ expenditure incurred by him on account of the instant court case.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for OP-1 and also gone through the file carefully. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, following points are formulated for discussion and proper adjudication :-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for claim as prayed for?
3. Whether the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable?
4. Relief.

Point No.1 & 2

4. Both these points are interconnected, hence are taken together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
5. Close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record of the case file, coupled with the rival contentions of the complainant and learned counsel for OP-1, are discussed as under:-

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had transferred an amount of ₹30,000/- by using his SBI debit card, issued by his banker i.e. OP-2/bank, in the account of Sonika Jewellers maintained with OP-1 and further since the complainant has admitted in his rejoinder that the aforesaid amount has been credited in his account by the OPs, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. The extract of the account ledger maintained by OP-1 qua the account of Sonika Jewellers clearly indicates that an amount of ₹64,948.84 was credited back to the account of M/s Sonika Jewellers on 17.8.2018, as is also evident from Annexure OP-1/1.  Not only this, even the entry in Annexure OP-1/2 further indicates that on 30.8.2018, OP-1 had created charge back on the amount of ₹30,000/- in the account of M/s Sonika Jewellers. It is further evident from Annexure OP-1/3 that entry qua refund to the tune of ₹30,000/- was also created in the account of Sonika Jewellers on 7.3.2019 in whose favour the complainant had transferred the said amount.  Thus, one thing is very clear from the aforesaid documents that in fact entry qua the transfer of the amount of ₹30,000/- was reflected in the account of M/s Sonika Jewellers even in the month of August 2018 and the documents having been relied upon by the complainant i.e. certificate issued by Sonika Jewellers showing that no such amount was transferred in its account seems to be incorrect.
3. Moreover, though the complainant has alleged in his rejoinder that he was informed about the transfer of the said amount by the representative of OP-1 in the month of April 2020, the complainant has not produced any statement of account or other documents in support of his case that the said amount of ₹30,000/- was transferred in his account in the month of April 2020 i.e. after more than 1½ years.

6. In view of the foregoing, it is unsafe to hold that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs or that the complainant is entitled to compensation on account of mental harassment etc. or litigation expenses, especially when the complainant has not disclosed about the factum of refund of the amount in the same month i.e. in the month of April 2020 in his account by the OPs.

Point No.3

7. The defence of the OPs is that the complainant is not a consumer. However, as it has come on record that the complainant was having his account in the OP-2/bank and was also using the ATM card issued by it by hiring services of OP-2 on consideration, it is unsafe to hold that the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. 

Relief

8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
Announced		[Pawanjit Singh]	[Surjeet Kaur]
03/10/2022		President	Member
hg