BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint Case No  :   43 of 2010

Date of Institution :  21.01.2010

Date of  Decision   :  10.01.2011

Sandeep Parkash Gupta son of Shri S.C. Gupta, resident of House No. 539, Phase-4, Mohali. Presently at House No. 1111, Shivjot Enclave, Kharar, Mohali, Punjab.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

Punjab National Bank, SCO No. 1-3, Sector 28, Chandigarh, through its Manager (Branch).

                         ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI             PRESIDING MEMBER

          DR.[MRS.]MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER

PRESENT: None for the Complainant.

         Sh.Ajay Kumar Sapehia, Adv. for OP.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, Sandeep Parkash Gupta - Complainant was holding a S.B. A/c No. 0574 0013 000 5870 with Punjab National Bank (for brevity ‘OP’) and by virtue of which, he was issued Debit Credit Card No.5048 8405 7401 0015 297 by the said OP. It was alleged that on 31.7.2008, when he used the aforesaid Card at the ATM of ICICI Bank situated in Phase-5, Mohali, for withdrawing Rs.4,000/-, he did not receive any money at all, but to his utter shock, the said sum along with Rs.20/- (charged at the relevant time on account of using ATM Facility of another Bank) was deducted from his aforesaid account. On the same day, he immediately lodged a complaint with the Customer Care and thereafter, also remained in constant touch with them, upon which the Complainant was assured that after doing the needful, the amount in question would be credited in his account soon, but they did nothing even after lapse of more than 18 months. Hence, the present complaint has been filed, alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking their version of the case.

3]      OP in its written statement/ reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that as per Bank record, the Complainant had made two successful transactions and had withdrawn Rs.4000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively, through his ATM Card. However, charging of Rs.20/-, as per RBI guidelines, has not been refuted. It was asserted that neither the Complainant ever approached them nor lodged any complaint as alleged with the Customer Care with respect to non-receiving of money from the ATM and it was only on receipt of summons from this Forum, they took up the matter with the ATM Re-conciliation Cell and since the claim had to be lodged with other Bank i.e. ICICI Bank, it would take time for settlement, if found tenable.  Since, as per record, Complainant had made two successful transactions on 31.7.2008, hence, he was not entitled for any amount as claimed. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      Since none appeared for the Complainant on 10.01.2011, therefore, we proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the Complainant.

6]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OP Bank. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the OP Bank. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant holding a S.B. A/c No. 0574 0013 000 5870 with the facility of ATM Card No.5048 8405 7401 0015 297 with the OP and that he had made an ATM cash transaction on 31.7.2008 for withdrawing Rs.4,000/-, which was subsequently debited to his S/B Account, along with Rs.20/- charged on account of using ATM facility of another Bank, have all been admitted. As per the Complainant, after doing the aforesaid transaction on 31.7.2008, he did not receive any money at all from the ATM, although his account was debited with the OP for a sum of Rs.4020/-. Immediately, he lodged a complaint with the Customer Care unit of the OP and thereafter, remained in constant touch with them, but the amount in question was not credited in his account, even after a period of 18 months. This has led to the present complaint.

ii] OP in its written statement, while admitting the basic matrix of the case, has stated that in fact, the Complainant had made two successful transactions on 31.7.2008; one for Rs.4,000/- and the second for Rs.5,000/- respectively, through his ATM Card by using the ATM facility of another Bank i.e. ICICI Bank. Accordingly, as per RBI Guidelines, his account was debited to the extent of Rs.4000/- and Rs.5000/- along with Rs.20/- extra. The OP further says that neither the Complainant ever approached them, nor lodged any formal complaint with its Customer Care Unit in respect of his not receiving the money from ATM. It was only for the first time that the OP received summons from this Forum and immediately, thereafter, took up the matter with their ATM Re-conciliation Cell at the Head Office. But since the matter was related to another Bank, it was taking a lot more time for final settlement.  The OP further asserts that since the Complainant had made two successful transactions on 31.7.2008, he was not entitled to refund of any amount, as claimed. On these grounds, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

iii] After analyzing the case in details, it is observed that no doubt, the Complainant had made two transactions by using his ATM Card on 31.7.2008 for a sum of Rs.5000/- and Rs.4000/- respectively, there is no document or even a shred of evidence on record to show or prove that he had received only Rs.5000/- and not the remaining Rs.4000/-. Further, there is no paper or document on the file showing that the Complainant had ever made any complaint to the OP from 31.7.2008, till the date of filing of instant complaint i.e. 21.1.2010. Since the Complainant had not made any formal complaint with the OP for such a long time, there was no question of OP redressing his grievance. In addition to this, the basic transaction of Rs.4000/- was made by the Complainant at the ATM of ICICI Bank i.e. it was the ATM of some other Bank and not that of the OP, which was the Complainant’s Bank indeed.  Unfortunately, the Complainant has not made the said ICICI Bank as a party in the present case. Had he done so, the ICICI Bank would have explained the entire position in respect of the non- functioning of the ATM set-up by them or that in fact, whether or not the Complainant received his money of Rs.4,000/-, even after making successful transaction through his ATM Card. But that is not the position in this case, as the ICICI Bank has not been impleaded as a party by the Complainant. Thus, the present complaint suffers from the vice of non-joinder of a necessary party i.e. ICICI Bank. There are papers in the file submitted on behalf of the OP, showing that OP has been making very sincere efforts with their Head Office (ATM Re-conciliation Cell), for final settlement of the case, after it received notice of this complaint, but the same has not been done by the Other Bank, which is not a party in this case. Further, there is already a delay of about 18 months and that may be one reason for the non-settlement of the entire case, so far despite best efforts made by the OP. This inordinate delay of 18 months is entirely on the part of the Complainant and not on the part of the OP and hence, OP can’t be blamed for non-settlement of the grievance of the Complainant. 

7]      Keeping in view the above detailed study of the case, in our considered opinion, there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint, as the Complainant himself is at fault in not lodging a formal complaint with the OP for a period of about 18 months and also not furnishing any proof that he had actually not received the cash sum of Rs.4,000/- after making an ATM transaction on 31.7.2008. Last, but not the least, the ICICI Bank, at whose ATM the Complainant had made the transaction and who could best redress the grievance of the Complainant, is not a party in the present case. Therefore, the Complainant has no case at all. In view of all this, the present complaint cannot succeed in favour of the Complainant and against the OP and we order accordingly. We dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

8]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the respective parties, free of any charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10.01.2011

               Sd/-                                                     

                                (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

PRESIDING MEMBER

                                        Sd/-

(DR.[MRS.]MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA)

MEMBER