DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 73/2017
Date of Institution : 06.06.2017
Date of Decision : 12.01.2018
Randeep Singh aged 27 years son of Jarnail Singh resident of Pirtha Patti, Village Dhurkot, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala (Punjab).
…Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Pakho Kalan, Tehsil Tapa District Barnala through its Branch Manager.
2. Circle Office, Punjab National Bank, Near T.V. Tower, Bathinda through its authorized person/competent person.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Randeep Singh complainant in person.
Sh. AK Jindal counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI SUKHPAL SINGH GILL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Randeep Singh son of Jarnail Singh has filed the present complaint against Punjab National Bank, Branch Pakho Kalan opposite party No. 1 and Circle Office, Punjab National Bank, Bathinda opposite party No. 2 under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had been working as business correspondent of opposite parties at Village Dhurkot and maintained a Current Bank Account bearing No. 4809002100000466 with opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 is the administrative authority of opposite party No. 1. So, the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties.
3. It is further pleaded that on 30.8.2016 there was credit balance of Rs. 22,113/- in the account of the complainant. On the same day opposite party No. 1 unauthorizedly debited amounts of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1,340/-, Rs. 2,490/- and Rs. 4,280/- and transferred these amounts. The complainant never authorized opposite parties to transfer the said amounts.
4. It is alleged that the complainant sent an email and requested to check the entries but till date with no result. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 1 many times and every time employees of the opposite party No. 1 told that email has been sent to opposite party No. 2 and only opposite party No. 2 is competent to reverse the entries but nothing has been done till date. Thus, the act of the opposite parties caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant and it is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to credit the amounts of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1,340/-, Rs. 2,490/- and Rs. 4,280/- in the account of the complainant.
2) To pay interest from 30.8.2016 to 6.6.2017 at the rate of 9% per annum.
3) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
4) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
5) Any other relief to which this Forum deems fit.
5. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties have filed joint written version taking legal objections on the grounds of no locus standi and cause of action, complaint is frivolous, no jurisdiction, dispute raised in the present complaint is outside the preview of the Act, abuse of process of law, not verified in accordance with law, not maintainable as the complainant failed to implead the Head office of the opposite party bank as necessary party and complaint is filed just to harass the opposite parties.
6. On merits, the complaint is admitted to the extent that on 30.8.2016 entries mentioned in the complaint were debited in the account of the complainant. It is submitted that the same entries credited to the Account No. 0550002100239397 out of State Branch in the Account of India Idea which is within the knowledge of the complainant and duly informed to him when he lodged the complaint with the opposite parties.
7. It is further submitted that copy of account statement pertaining to the entries in question alleged in the complaint duly supplied to the complainant on 24.5.2017 and also informed to the complainant that the amount was credited/transferred in the account of India Idea and he was fully satisfied from the services of the opposite parties bank. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
8. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence copy of bank statement of account Ex.C-1, copies of emails Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, his own affidavit Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
9. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Manpreet Singh Branch Manager Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of Net Account Debit Vouchers Ex.OP-1.2/2 to Ex.OP-1.2/5, copy of account statement Ex.OP-1.2/6, copy of user guide for retail Internet banking users Ex.OP-1.2/7, copy of digital banking circular No. 04/2016 dated 1.1.2016 Ex.OP-1.2/8, copy of procedure for blocking the Internet Banking Password alongwith instructions Ex.OP-1.2/9 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the parties.
11. It is admitted fact that the complainant is having a Current Account No. 4809002100000466 with the opposite party No. 1 at Branch Pakho Kalan. It is also admitted fact that on 30.8.2016 the entries for Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1,340/-, Rs. 2,490/- and Rs. 4,280/- were debited in the above mentioned current account of the complainant. Now the main dispute between the parties is that whether these entries were debited with the permission or knowledge of the complainant.
12. To support his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-4 vide which he has reiterated his case as mentioned in the complaint. Apart from his affidavit he has filed copy of statement of account Ex.C-1 in which it is clearly shows that on 30.8.2016 the above mentioned four entries were debited in the Current Account No. 4809002100000466 of the complainant and these amounts have been transferred to Account No. 0550002100239397. The complainant also filed copy of email Ex.C-2 vide which the complainant sent his complaint regarding the entries in dispute to the opposite parties and also mentioned the date of these entries as 30.8.2016. The complainant also filed copy of email Ex.C-3 which was sent by the opposite party No. 1 to the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Circle Office Bathinda about the above mentioned entries but the opposite parties never replied to the email of the complainant.
13. The opposite parties to rebut the case of the complainant filed affidavit of Manpret Singh Branch Manager Ex.OP-1.2/1 vide which reiterated their stand as taken in their written version. The opposite parties also filed copies of Net Account Debit Vouchers Ex.OP-1.2/2 to Ex.OP-1.2/5 vide which these entries were debited in the Account of the complainant and also filed copy of Account statement Ex.OP-1.2/6 in which on 30.8.2016 these entries are shown to be debited in the account of the complainant but there is no detail as to whose account these amounts have been credited in this statement. In front of these entries only account number of the complainant is mentioned but there is no transaction number or account in which these amounts have been transferred is mentioned whereas on other entries transaction numbers are mentioned.
14. Apart from this the opposite parties also filed documents Ex.OP-1.2/7 to Ex.OP-1.2/9 regarding use of Internet banking but they have failed to prove that these documents were in the knowledge of the complainant or ever supplied to the complainant. Out of these documents even a single document has not been signed by the complainant. Further, the opposite parties have failed to produce any document vide which the complainant authorized the bank to debit these entries from the account of the complainant or any form vide which the complainant has taken Internet Banking facility in which it is mentioned that in case of any technical fault/fraud by anyone with the complainant the bank is not all responsible for that. Further, the bank has failed to prove that there is any business link of the complainant with the India Idea and prior to these entries any amount was transferred from the account of the complainant to the account of India Idea. Further, the opposite parties also failed to reply the email of the complainant Ex.C-2 and also supply any details to the complainant regarding these entries. The opposite parties even not produced any document vide which they can prove that these entries were made by the complainant himself or any other person to whom the complainant shared his online password. So, the act and conduct of the opposite parties falls within the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
15. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to credit the amount of Rs. 8,610/- in the account of the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2,200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
12th Day of January 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
