Haryana

Panchkula

CC/148/2017

RAJNEESH BHOSLE - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

29 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	148 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	31.07.2017
Date of Decision	:	29.01.2019

 

Rajneesh Bhosle s/o Late Sh. Jagir Singh, resident of House No.253, Wadhava Nagar, Baltana, Punjab. 

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, SCO No.6, Guru    Nanak Colony, near railway crossing Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Mohali.

 

2. Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, SCO 70, Sector-19,        Panchkula.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:   None for the complainant.

                        Mr. Sumeer Bector, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                        Mr. Sumit Narang, Advocate for the OP No.2.  

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     We shall be disposing of the present complaint on the basis of record available on the file and the arguments advanced by ld. counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 as the complainant or his counsel duly authorized by him in this behalf has not appeared on 18.12.2018, 16.01.2019 and today i.e. 29.01.2019. The case has been adjourning for the same purpose i.e. for arguments but none appeared on behalf of the complainant.

2.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant has a saving bank account bearing No.6170000100009570 in PNB (OP No.1). On 31.7.2015, complainant tried to withdraw Rs.15,000/- from the above said saving bank account from ATM at PNB Branch SCO 70, Sector 19, Panchkula, but the money did not come out from the ATM. Thereafter, complainant made four more attempts of Rs. 15,000/-, 10,000/- 10,000/- and 10,000/- to take money, however, money did not come out from the ATM Machine. On 6.8.2015, complainant received one transaction of Rs. 15,000/- in his account. However, all other transactions are being shown as ATM withdrawal and are debited in the complainant account. Then complainant approached the OP No.1 and complains about the same. The OP advised the complainant to make his complaint at toll free number.  As per the advice of OP No.1, complainant lodged   complaints at toll free number bearing complaints No. 03618, 9557, 9692 and 9778. The complainant on the advice of OP No.1 did so but they did not solve the problem of the complainant and failed to refund his money. On 30.12.2015, the complainant gave a written complaint to OP No.1 and 2 in spite of the receipt of the notice, the Ops have not bothered to take up any action in this regard. The limit of ATM card of the complainant is maximum Rs. 25,000/- per day, then how it is possible that Rs. 60,000/- can come out from ATM machine. Further, complainant has come to know that the ATM machine at Sector 19, Panchkula is old and only can give a maximum of Rs. 10,000/- at one time, then how can Rs. 15,000/- come out from the machine. The complainant has requested personally as well as has made many telephonic calls to the Ops for the refund of his amount, which was wrongly deducted. Despite repeated many requests to the Ops, they did not pay any heed and the Ops have failed to refund the abovesaid amount; this act and conduct of the OPs amount to deficiency in service on their part; hence, this complaint.

3.     Upon notice, the OPs No.1 and 2 have appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate written statement taking preliminary objections. The OP No.1 has averred that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is stopped by its own act and conduct and admissions; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is admitted that OP No.1 received complaint from complainant and they informed the OP No.2 in this regard and requested to treat it as urgent. Further, the OP No.1 informed the complainant that his transaction took place at Branch Office Sector 19, Panchkula, therefore, he have to talk with them. The operation of both the branches are different and also situated at different areas and under the control of different higher authorities i.e. OP No.1 under the control of Circle Office Patiala and OP No.2 under Chandigarh Zone. The OP No.1 every time has given full assistance to the complainant to sort the dispute.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs qua OP No.1.

        The OP No.2 has stated that the complainant is not a consumer. It is further stated that complainant had operated the PNB ATM not only at Sector 19, Panchkula Branch, but also at Dhakoli Branch in order to carry out the disputed transactions. It is wrong that the complainant had conducted all the five ATM transactions on 31.7.2015; whereas, three ATM transactions were carried out on 30.7.2015 at 10:03 p.m, 10:04 p.m and 10:06 p.m and two ATM transactions were carried out on 31.7.2015 at 9:33 p.m and 9:34 p.m. It is further stated that ATM transactions conducted by the complainant at late night hours i.e. after 10:00 p.m are shown in the transaction entries for the next day in the pass book since ATM machines undergo auto updation in late hours therefore transactions undertaken at late night hours are updated with a delay and shown in the transactions undertaken in the very next day. The ATM transaction on 30..2015 amounting to Rs. 15,000/- declined by the ATM but debited from the account of the complainant was refunded back into the account of the complainant on 6.8.2015. The ATM transactions at 10:04 p.m and 10:06 p.m on 30.7.2015 from ATM at PNB, Panchkula and at 9:33 p.m and 9:34 p.m on 31.7.2015 from ATM at PNB Dhakouli were successful and total amount of Rs. 45,000/- was successfully withdrawn by the complainant through ATM and the said transactions were duly verified through JP log of the respective ATM machines. It is wrong that money was not disbursed out of the ATM and was debited from his account. The complainant never gave any written complaint dated 30.12.2015 to OP No.1. Neither the name of the bank official who is purportedly to have received the alleged complaint is mentioned therein nor the said alleged complaint shows any stamp/seal of the receiving bank. It is alleged that the complainant withdrew Rs. 20,000/- on 30.7.2015 from ATM at Panchkula and Rs. 25,000/- on 31.7.2015 from ATM at Dhakouli. It is wrong that complainant gave any personal request nor any telephonic complaint for refund of any amount to OP No.2. It is further alleged that ATM transaction on 30.7.2015 amounting to Rs. 15,000/- declined by the ATM but debited from the account of the complainant was refunded back into the account of the complainant on 6.8.2015. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP No.2 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

4.     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 and C-2 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit Annexure R2/A along with documents Annexure R2/1 to R2/3 and closed the evidence.  

5.     We have heard learned counsels for both the Ops and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

        After hearing the ld. counsels and perusing the record available on the file, it has been transpired that the complainant was having a saving bank account bearing No.6170000100009570 in PNB (OP No.1) and he made several transactions through ATM of Ops for the purposes of withdrawal of amount in cash. As per version of the complainant he made the below mentioned five transactions through ATM of OP No.2 but the cash amount was not dispensed by the ATM machine and thus, the transactions were unsuccessful. The complainant has claimed that the amount of Rs.45,000/- was debited from the account of complainant despite the fact that the transactions were unsuccessful.

Sr. No.	Date	Transaction No.	DR Amount
1.	31.07.2015	6422	15,000.00
2.	31.07.2015	6423	10,000.00
3.	31.07.2015	6424	10,000.00
4.	31.07.2015	8296	15,000.00
5.	31.07.2015	8298	10,000.00

 

In this regard, the complainant has relied upon the accounts statement as reflected by the OP No.1 in the account statement (Annexure C-1) of the complainant. Out of above mentioned five transactions, the amount of Rs.15,000/- was credited in the account of complainant by the Ops on 06.08.2015. The complainant has grievances with regard to the transactions mentioned above at Serial No.2 to 5 stating that the Ops are liable to make the payment of an amount of Rs.45,000/- as the said amount was not received by him because the ATM machine did not dispense the said amount to him.

6.     The Ops have countered the claim of the complainant stating that the complainant had made the three transactions on 30.07.2015 at 10:03 PM, 10:04 PM and 10:06 PM from ATM at PNB, Panchkula having ID No.D1755600, and on 31.07.2015 at 09:33 PM and 09:34 PM from ATM at PNB, Dhakouli having ID No.D1617000. Further, it is stated that all the transactions were successful except the first transaction No.D1755600. The ld. counsels appearing for the Ops contended that the amount of Rs.15,000/- was duly credited in the account of the complainant on 06.08.2015. The ld. counsel further contended that the complainant made the transactions on 30.07.2015 at 10:03 PM, 10:04 PM and 10:06 PM from ATM at PNB, Panchkula having ID No.D1755600, of OP No.2 instead of 31.07.2015 as alleged by the complainant. The ld. counsel further stated that the complainant made the transactions 31.07.2015 at 09:33 PM and 09:34 PM from ATM at PNB, Dhakouli having ID No.D1617000 of OP No.1 instead of OP No.2 i.e. PNB, Sector 19, Panchkula. The ld. counsels placed reliance upon JP log Annexure R-2/1 and Annexure R-2/2 in support of their contention. The ld. counsels asserted that the complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands as he has suppressed, concealed and distorted the material facts having importance bearing on the issue in question. Concluding the arguments, the ld. counsel stated that the complainant lodged the alleged complaint Annexure C-2 after a period of about five months and the present complaint has been filed after the expiry of two years i.e. on 31.07.2017 whereas the alleged transactions were made by the complainant on 31.07.2015. We have gone through the JP log Annexure R-2/1 and Annexure R-2/2. As per JP log, the complainant has been found to have made the following transactions, the details of which is given in the tabular form as below:-     

Date	Time	ATM Branch	Amount	Transaction No.	Successful/declined
30.07.2015	10:03 PM	Sector 19, Pkl.	Rs.15,000	6422	Declined
30.07.2015	10:04 PM	Sector 19, Pkl.	Rs.10,000	6423	Success
30.07.2015	10:06 PM	Sector 19, Pkl.	Rs.10,000	6424	Success
31.07.2015	09:33 PM	Dhakouli	Rs.15,000	8296	Success
31.07.2015	09:34 PM	Dhakouli	Rs.10,000	8298	Success

 

A bare perusal of above would reveal that the complainant made the transactions No. 6422, 6423 and 6424 on 30.07.2015 and not on 31.07.2015 as alleged by the complainant. Further, the version of the complainant has been found falsified to the extent that he made all the transactions at the ATM of Sector 19, Panchkula, OP No.2. As per the above details, the genuineness of which is not in doubt, it is evident that the complainant made transactions on 31.07.2015 at 09:33 PM and 09:34 PM from the branch of OP No.1 i.e. at Dhakauli Branch.

7.     A perusal of above transactions clearly reveals that the complainant made the above mentioned transactions by using his card No.5126520132186532. The complainant has not controverted the genuineness and the contents of the JP log contained in Annexure R-2/1 and R-2/2. It is not the case of the complainant that the card No.5126520132186532 is not related to him. We are satisfied with the version of the Ops regarding the mismatch between the date as shown in the pass-book Annexure C-1 vis-à-vis the JP log Annexure R-2/1 and Annexure R-2/2 that ATM transactions conducted at late night hours i.e. after 10:00 PM are shown in the transaction entries for the next day in the pass book since ATM machines undergo auto updation in late hours.  We are further satisfied with the version of the Ops regarding the non-production of CCTV footage that the record of the CCTV footage is kept stored only up to a period of three months whereas the complainant has allegedly made the complaint to the OP No.1 after a period of five months vide his application dated 30.12.2015 Annexure C-2. Further, we have found no force in the version of the complainant about his lodging various complaints vide complaints No.03618, 9557, 9692 and 9778 because no record of these complaints has been made available by the complainant. It is well settled proposition of law that mere bald assertions not corroborated by credible and cogent evidence carries no evidentiary value. In the back drop of above discussion, we find no force and substance in the complaint and accordingly, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

29.01.2019         RUBY SHARMA      JAGMOHAN SINGH       SATPAL

                          MEMBER               MEMBER               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         SATPAL

                                         PRESIDENT