Haryana

Panchkula

CC/276/2017

SAMLESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KUMAR

29 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	276 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	8.12.2017
Date of Decision	:	29.10.2018

 

Samlesh Kumar @ S.K. Bansal son of Late Sh. J.N.Bansal aged about 50 years resident of House No. 60 Sector 16, Panchkula. 

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, SCO No.15, Sector-2, Panchkula.
2. Punjab National Bank through its General Manager Head Office-5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

….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:   Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant. 

                        Mr. Satyawan Ahlawat, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 6.3.2018.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is working as stamp vendor in Tehsil Complex Panchkula and was earning livelihood by selling stamp papers and that the stamp papers could not be purchased without depositing amount in the bank; on 15.07.2017, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4850/- through e-banking from the current account No.6527002100000047 with OP No.1 in his name i.e. Samlesh Kumar (S.K.Bansal) vide GRN No.29294479 for getting the stamp papers from Treasury Panchkula for which the Op No.1 deducted an amount of Rs.4,850/- from the account of the complainant but the said transaction was failed, so the amount was not sent to Treasury Panchkula for releasing the stamp papers; on 16.07.2017, the complainant contacted at Toll Free No.18001802222 of Punjab National Bank and lodged a complaint by registering complaint bearing No. M-102087762 at toll free number regarding refund of the deducted amount i.e. Rs.4850/- and the complainant was told that the process would take about 45 working days for the refund of the amount; but the same was not refunded and at last on 5.10.2017, the complainant again contacted the Punjab National Bank Customer Care Centre on toll free number and complainant was told that the complaint of the complainant had not been solved and a new complaint has to be got registered and there upon another complaint bearing  registration number M-107578282 dated 5.10.2017 was lodged and he was again told that the process would take about 45 working days for refund of amount but the Ops have failed to refund the abovesaid amount; this act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops; hence, this complaint.

2.     Upon notice, the OP No.1 has appeared and contested the complaint by filing the written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has got no locus standi; concealed the true facts. It is further stated that the complainant himself had done the transaction through online system and the amount was deposited by the complainant himself in the EPFO account through online instead of Egrass, therefore, it is incorrect that the amount of Rs.4850/- was deducted by the OP No.1. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

3.     Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through registered post, which was not received back served or unserved despite the expiring of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP No.2; hence, it is deemed to be served. However, none has appeared on behalf of the OP No. 2 and thus, the OP No.2 was proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 6.3.2018.

4.     The counsel for the complainant reiterating the version contained in the complaint controverted the stand of OP No.1, which has been taken in the written statement.

5.     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 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 along with documents Annexure R-1/1 and closed the evidence. During the course of arguments Sh. Vipin Chander, who is Head Cashier/Authorized Representative of OP No.1 placed on record the account statement dated 15.7.2017 by making a separate statement, which we have taken on record as Mark-A for the just and proper adjudication of the proper controversy involved in the present complaint. Thereafter, on 22.10.2018 an official of OP No.1 appeared in the Forum stating that the amount in question has been refunded to the complainant and in this regard placed on record a copy of account statement of the complainant, which we have taken on record as Mark-B.

6.     We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the record minutely and carefully. After hearing the ld. Counsels and going through the relevant record, it has transpired that the complainant is a stamp vendor having a current account No.6527002100000047 with OP No.1. It is not disputed that the stamp vendor used to deposit the amount with the OP No.1 for onward transmission of the said amount in the account of the Treasury so as to enable the complainant to obtain the stamp papers in lieu of deposited amount. It has been further revealed that the complainant made a transaction on 15.7.2017 vide GRN No.29294479 by depositing Rs. 5,000/- for the purpose of obtaining the stamp papers but the transaction had failed and in this regard we found the copy of challan as Annexure C-3. We have also found that an amount of Rs. 4,850/- was deducted from the above said account of the complainant in respect of above said failed transaction as is evident from the perusal of account statement of the complainant as Annexure C-1. We further come across the details of another transaction made by the complainant on 16.7.2017 vide GRN No. 29305821 for obtaining the stamp papers amounting to Rs. 5,000/- and this transaction was successful as is evident from Annexure C-4. The contention of the complainant is that he is entitled to the refund of Rs. 4,850/- along with interest from the OP No.1 as the transaction on 15.7.2017 was not successful and it is the further contention of the complainant that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by him vide GRN No.29294479 were not transferred by OP No.1 into the account of the Treasury Department, Haryana enabling the complainant to obtain the stamp papers. The OP No.1 has resisted the claim of the complainant stating that there is no lapse on the part of the OP No.1 as the complainant himself through online system has done the transaction and deposited the amount in the EPFO account through online instead of Egrass. The ld. Counsel for OP No.1 invited the attention of this Forum towards the account statement Annexure R-1/1 showing that amount in question i.e. Rs.4,850/- was deposited in the EPF account by the complainant as is evident from the said account statement. The ld. Counsel for OP No.1 contended that the complainant should have deposited the amount under the head, namely, “HVAT” for obtaining the stamp papers and in this regard placed his reliance upon the account statement Mark-A stating that some other persons, namely, Ramji Lal also deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000/- under the head, namely, “HVAT” for obtaining the stamp papers. Continuing the arguments the ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 asserted that there was no fault in the system but the amount in question were got deposited in the EPF account due to the lapse of complainant only and thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.     To sort out the controversy between the parties we have to examine whether the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.5,000/- on 15.7.2017 for the correct purpose and under the correct scheme. The transaction made on 15.7.2017 was unsuccessful and copy of the challan is available on record as Annexure C-3 and the transaction made on 16.7.2017 was successful as is evident from Annexure C-4. For the better appreciation of the facts we deem it expedient to reproduce the contents of both challans i.e. Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-4 as under:-

Annexure C-3

GRN	P_TYPE	Challan Date	Scheme	Purpose	Amount	Refund Amount	Status	CIN	Deposit Date	Voucher No.
29294479	N	15/07/2017	0030-02-102-98-51 Other General Stamps (Non-Judicial)	NON JUDICIAL STAMP PAPERS	5000	0	failure		16/07/2017 06:60:02	0

 

Annexure C-4

GRN	P_TYPE	Challan Date	Scheme	Purpose	Amount	Refund Amount	Status	CIN	Deposit Date
29305821	N	16/07/20177	0030-02-102-98-51 Other General  Stamps (Non-Judicial)	NON JUDICIAL STAMP PAPERS	5000	0	Successful	100689435	16/07/2017 00:00:00

 

8.     From a bear perusal of copy of above challans, it is crystal clear that the complainant had applied for the correct purpose i.e. for non-judicial stamp papers and under the correct scheme i.e. 0030-02-102-98-51 other General Stamps (Non-Judicial); thus, we find the version of the OP No.1 completely negated and falsified as there is no error or lapse on the part of the complainant while making the transaction for the correct purpose and under the correct scheme. The version of the OP No.1 is further falsified in view of the facts that the challan Annexure C-3 bears the date as 15.7.2017 under the column of Challan date whereas it reflects date as 16.7.2017 under the column of deposit date. It is not in dispute that the complainant made the transaction on 15.7.2017 and the amount was also debited from his account on 15.7.2017 itself and thus, there arises no question of depositing the amount on 16.7.2017 as shown by the challan Annexure C-3. Thus, we are of the considered view that there was no lapse on the part of the complainant while conducting the transaction on 15.7.2017 and the amount of Rs. 4,850/- got deposited in EPF account due to the errors in the online system for which no fault of any kind in any manner can be attributed with the complainant. Moreover, the complaints lodged by the complainant by registering complaint bearing No. M-102087762 dated 15.7.2017 and bearing registration number M-107578282 dated 5.10.2017 failed to evoke any positive response from the OP No.1. Further, we find no efforts on the part of OP No.1 asking the EPF Department to refund the amount of Rs. 4,850/- to the complainant. In the back drop of above stated facts it was incumbent upon the OP No.1 to make sincere efforts for obtaining the refund of said amount. Thus, we find utter lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.1 while delivering the services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

9.     Regarding relief to the complainant we have found that an amount of Rs. 4,950/- has been credited in the account of the complainant as is evident from Mark-B. 

10.    As a sequel of above discussion, we dispose of the present complaint with the direction to OP No.1 as follows:-  

1. To pay the interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 15.7.2017 i.e. the date of deposit to the complainant till its realization on the deposited amount of Rs. 4,850/-minus Rs.100/-.
2. To pay 5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation charges/expenses.

11.    The OP No.1 shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OP No.1.

12.    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

 29.10.2018          RUBY SHARMA      JAGMOHAN SINGH      SATPAL

                          MEMBER               MEMBER               PRESIDENT

 

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

 

                                         SATPAL

                                         PRESIDENT