Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/863

Ravi Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep S. adv

08 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 863 of 30.11.2017.

Date of Decision            :   08.11.2021

 

Ravi Choudhary aged 31 years, Advocate c/o Chamber No.4015, New Court Complex, Part II, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Punjab National Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Luddhiana.

2.Mcdonalds Outlet, SCO No.3,4,5, Ranjit Square, Village Gill No.1 & 2, Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana.

3.HDFC Bank Limited, Mcdonalds, Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties

 

 

                    Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant            :         Sh.Amandeep Singh, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh.Sumit Jain, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Sh.Ashok Bhakri, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Sh.Rahul Rajput, Advocate.

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Brief facts of the case are that on 17.07.2017, the complainant bought goods worth of Rs.329/- from the OP2 and paid the amount through his ATM Card. However, when the ATM Card of the complainant, issued by the OP1, was swiped, the transaction failed and the swipe machine generated the slip Ex.C2 regarding the failed transaction. As a result, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.329/- in cash to the OP2. After about twelve minutes, the complainant received a message on his mobile that a sum of Rs.329.22P has been debited in his bank account No.2057000100721245 maintained with the OP1 through a debit card transaction. The complainant contacted the OP1 and also obtained a mini statement wherein the amount of Rs.329.22P was shown to have been debited in his account and subsequently, the debit entry was not reversed. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP1 many a times, but his grievance was not redressed. The complainant also approached the OP2 who told the complainant that it was the responsibility of the bank concerned. This amounts to gross deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Complainant even got served a legal notice dated 23.10.2017 upon the OPs but despite that no action was taken. Hence the complaint. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.329/- along with compensation of Rs.5 lac for causing mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been stated that when the card of the complainant was swiped, there must have been a fault in the swiping machine (Point of Sale Terminal) where the card was swiped, for which the OP3 is liable to be held responsible due to which double payment was made to the OP2 who received the cash payment as well as through swiping of ATM Card. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of the OP2, it has been pleaded that the complaint as against the OP2 is liable to be dismissed as it has no role in the erroneous debiting of the amount in the complainant’s account. OP2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP3, it has been pleaded that the OP3 has not been guilty of deficiency of service in any manner nor any legal notice has been served upon it. OP2 has also prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex. C7 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 suffered statement on 16.09.2021 that the written reply filed by the OP1 may kindly be read the evidence of OP1 also and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.                Similarly, OP2 submitted affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Anu Kumar Bhatia, Manager of OP2 and closed the evidence.

8.                Counsel for the OP3 submitted affidavit Ex.RA3 of Ms.Ritu, Authorized Signatory of HDFC Bank Limited and closed the evidence.

9.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

10.               The grievance of the complainant in this case is that since the swiping of his card for payment of Rs.329/- to the OP2 was not successful, he made the payment in cash at the counter to the OP2. The point sale terminal (swiping machine) generated the slip Ex.C2, which indicates that the transaction of Rs.329.22P was not successful. However, the amount of Rs.329.22P was debited into the account of the complainant maintained with the OP1, as is evident from the statement of account Ex.C1. The entry of Rs.329.22P dated 17.07.2017 is not shown to have been reversed by the OP1 at any point of time subsequently nor any evidence has been led by the OP1 to show that this entry was reversed at some later stage. The OP1 has further not placed on record any document to prove that the amount of Rs.329.22P debited in the account of the complainant on 17.07.2017 was actually transferred in the account of the OP2. In the absence of any documentary evidence on this fact, it has to be presumed that the complainant was made to pay the amount of Rs.329.22P twice.

11.              So far as the OP2 is concerned, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP2 as the OP2 charged the amount of Rs.329.22P in cash only when the transaction was failed, vide failed transaction slip Ex.C2. Similarly, no case of deficiency of service stands proved as against the OP3 as it has not been established on record that the machine was faulty nor any evidence has been led that the account of the OP2 was maintained with the OP3.

12.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint as against the OP1 is allowed and the OP1 is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs.329.22P to the complainant along with interest @7% per annum from 17.07.2017 till the date of actual payment. OP1 shall further held liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as composite compensation to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

13.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                     (Jaswinder Singh)                         (K.K. Kareer)

            Member                                                  President

 

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:08.11.2021

Gurpreet Sharma.