Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/477

RAMESHWAR DAYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2016

ORDER

RAMESHWAR DAYAL KHANGAR                  …   APPELLANT.

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                              .… RESPONDENT. 

 

19.05.16

Ms.Smita Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Heard on admission.

As per Shri Subhash Jain:

 

                    This appeal has been filed by the complainant / appellant against the order dated 17.03.2016 passed in Case No.104/15 by the District Consumer Forum, Datia, whereby the Forum has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

2.                The fact in brief is that the complainant / appellant had an account no.0638002100015631 with the respondent – Bank. He had also availed the facility of ATM.  On 19.08.2014, without his knowledge, an amount of Rs.10,500/- got debited from his account through online shopping.   The appellant complained about this to the respondent – Bank, but no action was taken.      Later, on 22.08.2014, Rs.4000/- was deposited into his account by someone else, but the remaining amount of Rs.6500/- was still missing.  The complainant filed a compliant in the District Forum, Datia for the deficiency in service on the part of respondent – Bank.

3.                The District Forum in paragraph no.7 of its order has very elaborately indicated the cause under which the respondent – Bank is not held liable for the misappropriation of the amount which had taken place. It is further held that there is no deficiency in the service on the part of the respondent – Bank for the transactions of ATM conducted by the appellant / complainant.  Therefore, the Forum rejected the complaint of the complainant.

4.                We have gone through the order and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.

5.                In view of the above, we find that the there is no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum, Datia.  The conclusions drawn by District Forum, describing the conditions elaborately in paragraph no.7 of its order is quite correct, genuine and transparent, therefore needs no interference.  The appeal is therefore, dismissed at the admission stage having no merits at all.