Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/369/2020

Salochna W/o Zile Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Sanghwan

08 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    369 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of institution:         14.10.2020.

                                                                   Date of decision: 08.07.2022

 

1. Smt. Salochna w/o Shri Zile Singh,
2. Zile Singh s/o Shri Garja Singh,

both residents of village Habana, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                                                …Complainants.

                                                   Versus

 

1. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Shahabad Markanda, Distt. Kurukshetra.
2. Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Sandeep Chatha Complex, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra.
3. Corporate Manager, PNB Corporate Office, Plot No.4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Vikas Sangwan, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Vikrant Kundu, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that complainants got opened a joint saving bank account bearing No.0422000101573689 with OP No.1 and at that time, one cheque book, passbook, ATM card etc. was also issued to them. On 11.01.2020, complainant No.2 went to ATM branch of OP No.1 to withdraw Rs.8,000/- and when he operated the ATM to withdraw money, the cash was not released by ATM machine, but he received a message on his mobile regarding debiting Rs.8000/- from his said account. Complainant No.2 immediately approached the OP No.1 and explained the incident and on its advise, made a call on toll free No.1800-180-2222 and registered his complaint vide complaint No.A119703915 and it was assured that money was wrongly deducted and will be reimbursed in their account within 72 hours, but the same was not reimbursed. They again contacted the OPs and OP No.2 told that he will get CCTV footage of ATM to verify this fact. OP No.1 called its expert and get CCTV footage of ATM in presence of complainant No.2 and after viewing the same, it was confirmed that complainant No.2 went to ATM on 11.01.2020 and operated the ATM machine, but did not receive any cash from ATM machine. The complainant No.2 born all the expenses regarding visit of expert and obtaining CCTV footage in Pan Drive/CD. The complainant No.2 visited the office of OP No.1 and lastly in the last week of August 2020 and requested for settle his grievance, but till today, their grievance had not been resolved by the OPs, due to which, they suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, constraining them to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon receipt of notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their reply stating therein that the OPs moved an application before this Commission with a request to direct the complainants to provide all the documents with CD of alleged CCTV footage, but they failed to provide the complete documents including CD/PEN Drive of alleged CCTV footage to the OPs. As per bank record/ATM CRC, the transaction found successful and the amount of Rs.8000/- was withdrawn from the ATM and as per H.O. Operation Team, transaction found successful and accordingly the claim of the complainants was rejected. The legal notice was received by the OPs, which was duly replied by them on 10.9.2020. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

4.                In support to support their case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 (Pen Drive Ex.C-7) and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, OPs tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainants were having a joint saving bank account with OP No.1. On 11.01.2020, complainant No.2 operated the ATM to withdraw Rs.8,000/-, but the cash was not released by ATM machine, but he received a message on his mobile regarding debiting Rs.8,000/- from his said account. Complainant No.2 immediately approached the OP No.1 and registered his complaint on toll free No.1800-180-2222 vide complaint No.A119703915, but the amount was not reimbursed. From the CCTV footage of ATM, it was confirmed that complainant No.2 went to ATM on 11.01.2020 and operated the ATM machine, but did not receive any cash from ATM machine. The complainant No.2 born all the expenses regarding visit of expert and obtaining CCTV footage in Pan Drive/CD. The complainant No.2 visited the office of OP No.1 and lastly in the last week of August 2020 and requested for settle his grievance, but till today, their grievance had not been resolved by the OPs, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.                The learned counsel for OPs argued that the OPs moved an application before this Commission with a request to direct the complainants to provide all the documents with CD of alleged CCTV footage, but they failed to provide the complete documents including CD/PEN Drive of alleged CCTV footage to the OPs. As per bank record/ATM CRC, the transaction found successful and the amount of Rs.8000/- was withdrawn from the ATM and as per H.O. Operation Team, transaction found successful and accordingly the claim of the complainants was rejected. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainants were having Saving Bank Account with the OP No.1 branch vide copy of Passbook Ex.C-1.

10.              The grievance of the complainants is that on 11.01.2020, complainant No.2 went to ATM branch of OP No.1 to withdraw Rs.8000/- and when he operated the ATM to withdraw money, the cash was not released by ATM machine, but he received a message on his mobile regarding debiting Rs.8000/- from their account and in this regard, he approached the OPs various times to redress their grievance, but they failed to do so. To support their contentions, the complainants produced copy of complaint made by them on 12.03.2020 vide complaint No.A119703915 Ex.C-4. The complainants further produced copy of letter dated 10.09.2020 as Ex.C-5, vide which, the OPs sent reply to the legal notice dated 31.08.2020 of the complainants. On the other hand, the OPs contended that as per bank record/ATM CRC, the transaction found successful and the amount of Rs.8000/- was withdrawn from the ATM and as per H.O. Operation Team, transaction found successful and accordingly the claim of the complainants was rejected.

11.              To support his contentions, the complainant produced CCTV footage in a Pen Drive on the case file as Ex.C-7 and after playing the same in the computer system of this Commission, we found that in the ATM Booth, there are installed two ATM machines and complainant came and tried to withdraw the amount by using his ATM Card on both machines time to time, but it is not clear visible, whether the complainant received the currency notes against from the ATM machines or not. So, this CCTV footage has no favour to the case in hand.

12.              From the pleadings of the parties, we found that the complainants alleged that they have not received the amount of Rs.8,000/-, whereas, on the other hand, the OPs contending that the transaction found successful and the amount of Rs.8,000/- was withdrawn from the ATM and in these very circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OPs bank is liable to pay/refund the amount of Rs.8,000/- to its customer/complainants. In this regard, on this very point, we can rely upon the case law titled State Bank of India Vs. P.V. George (2019) AIR (Kerla) 140, wherein, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Kerla High court that:

                   “the relationship between a bank and its customers arises out of the contracts entered into between them. Such contracts exist of general terms applicable to all transactions and also special terms applicable to the special services, if any, provided by the bank to its customers. The relationship between a bank and its customer, in such if so far as it relates to the money deposited in the bank account of a customer, is that of debtor and creditor. The contractual relationship exits between a bank and its customers are found on custom and usages. Many of these customs and usages have been recognized by courts and it is now an accepted principle that to the extent that they have been so recognized, they are implied terms of the contracts between bank and their customers. Duties of care is an accepted implied term in the contractual relationship that exists between a bank and its customers. It is impossible to define exhaustively the duties of care owned by bank to its customer. It depends upon the nature of service extended by the bank to its customers. But one thing is certain that where a bank is providing service to its customers owes a duty to its customers to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized withdrawals from their accounts. As a corollary, there is no difficulty in holding that if a customer suffers a loss on account of the transactions not authorized by him, the bank is liable to the customer for the said loss.”.                   

13.              As per policy of the State Bank of India and observations made by the Hon’ble State Commission in the case of Dr. Subhash Chander Vs. State Bank of India, First Appeal No.735 of 2013, decided on 07.03.2014, “Indisputably, there is policy of State Bank of India, that is, State Bank of India Compensation Policy (Banking Services)-2013,(Annexure C/7).The relevant part of clause 4.1 of the policy is reproduced as under:

4.1 Unauthorized/Erroneous Debt xxx xxx xxx In case of any amount has been debited in the account of a customer on account of fraudulent transactions the amount will be restored to the affected customer account without delay/demur, once the fraud is established.

Xxx In case where neither the bank is at fault nor the customer, but the fault lies elsewhere n the system, the bank will help in restoring the actual amount involved and as a gesture of goodwill and to deal with the customers fairly, will also compensate the customer with Rs.100/-

per Rs.5000/- maximum Rs.1000/- for each instance.”

9.       A joint reading of the aforesaid clause enjoins the Bank responsible to make the payment to the customer on account of fraudulent transaction and also to compensate him to Rs.1000/- for each instance, as has been observed earlier. The transaction of the amount in question was of course by playing fraud, so the policy of the Bank envisages that the customer has to be paid the said amount of fraudulent transaction.

14.              Keeping in view the ratio of the laws laid down and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are liable to refund/pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainants along with compensation amount and litigation expenses for their act of deficiency in service.

15.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against the OPs and direct them to pay/refund the amount of Rs.8,000/- to the complainants. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainants, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to them, due to deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practise on their part and litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award claim amount of Rs.8,000/- shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization, and the complainants shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 71/72 of the Act, against OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:08.07.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                 DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.