Punjab

Sangrur

CC/349/2016

Shivcharan Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Nandpuri

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                  

 

                                                                  Complaint no. 349                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:   07.04.2016                      

                                                                      Decided on:    25.11.2016

        Shivcharan Dass son of Sh. Hari Ram, resident of       House       No.789, Block D, Guru Nanak Colony,   Sangrur Tehsil and    District Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, through its Managing Director, Head Office Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Patiala Gate, Sangrur-148001.
3. State Bank of Patiala through its Managing Director, Head Office The Mall, Patiala-147001.
4. Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala Main Branch, Bara Chowk, Sangrur-148001.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT   :                   Shri G.S.Nandpuri,  Advocate.                      

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES    :          Shri Ashish Kumar, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shivcharan Dass complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that  he used the ATM machine of the OPs no.3&4 on 04.02.2016 for withdrawing Rs.10,000/-  but during  process the ATM machine showed error and did not eject the amount.  The complainant again used the ATM at about 20:13 but again no amount was ejected by the ATM machine. But message was received on his mobile at 20:13 that the account of the complainant has been debited with Res.10,000/-. Thereafter the complainant made a complaint on toll free number of the PNB.  After waiting for seven days, the complainant lodged the complaint toll free number.  The complainant approached OP no.4 by submitting an application dated 23.02.2016 but OP no.4 did not acknowledge the receipt of application dated 23.02.2016.  Thereafter the complainant contacted through email the ATM cell of OP no.1 and he received reply through mail dt. 25.02.2016 that the claim of complainant has been rejected by OPs no.3&4 that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was duly ejected  by the machine. It is submitted that the defect in the ATM machine during the period 20:12 to 20:30  is very well proved from the Electronic Journal  of 04.02.2016.  It has been further mentioned a that SST in suspend mode and SST out of suspend mode. The complainant requested OP no.2 to provide cash verification report, video footage of CCTV cameras installed in ATM machine in question and to supply the record pertaining to the transactions vide registered letters sent on 05.03.2016 to OPs no.2 to 4  but demanded record has not been received. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/-  along with interest @12% per annum from 04.02.2016 till payment ,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs no.1 and 2,  it is submitted that after receiving the complaint  from the complainant, the OP No.2  sent the same to OPs no.3&4 who informed the OP no.2 that response code is shown as 000 and there was no excess cash found in the above said ATM, therefore the transaction is successful. The same was conveyed to the complainant.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs no.1&2.    

3.             In reply filed by the OPs no.3 and 4, it is submitted that the complainant himself withdrawn Rs.10,000/- on 04.02.2016 at 20:14 hours which is clear from the Electronic Journal Log ( EJL). Whenever  a transaction is successful  then  the ATM  will generate approved response code as '00' . However to avoid any type of manual addition or deletion in the response code, the software of the A.T.M has been upgraded so that it pre-fixes on extra ' 0' on the generated response code.  After receiving the complaint from  OPs no. 1 and 2  thorough investigation was done and it was found that the complainant has received the above said amount of Rs.10,000/- as the response code is shown as 000 meaning thereby transaction was  successful.  It is submitted that the complainant also withdrawn Rs.10000/-  o 04.02.2016 at 20:16 hours from another ATM  installed in State Bank of Patiala.  It is denied that ATM showed error and did not eject the amount.  When the transaction was successful, therefore the account of the complainant was rightly  debited for an amount of Rs.10,000/-.  As regards the transactions of other customers  were not mature, the same  is denied for want of knowledge  as the said customers did not make any complaint till today.  As regards video footage of CC TV cameras  did not supply to the complainant, the same does not require under law. Legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, concealment of material facts and  cause of action .

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-61 and closed evidence. On the other hand,  OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs. 1&2/1 to Ex.OPs. 1&2/2, Ex.OPs.3&4/1 to Ex.OPs.3&4/27 and closed evidence.

5.             Admittedly, the complainant is  having saving bank account bearing number 0419000104289389 with the OP no.1 for which the OP no.1 issued  ATM card to him. The specific grievance  of the complainant is that  when he visited the ATM machine of the OP no.3 on 04.02.2016 for withdrawing Rs.10,000/- , no amount  was ejected   and during the process the ATM machine showed error. The complainant again used the ATM at about 20:13  but again no amount was ejected but  to the surprise of the complainant, message was received that his account has been debited with Rs.10,000/-. On the other hand,  the categorical stand  of the OPs no.3 and 4 is that the said amount  of Rs.10,000/- was ejected on 04.02.2016 at 20:14  vide ATM ID no. S10B500026001 through card no.5048840419000022350 of Punjab National Bank against transaction No.7074 which is clear from Electronic Journal Log ( EJL) Ex.C-2 and Ex.OPs 3&4/13 and the said ATM  is installed  in the building of State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch Sangrur towards Patiala Gate side.  From the perusal  of the documents  it shows that  transaction number 7074 was made successful  as the response code is mentioned as '000'.   The complainant has stated that the code as per Ex.C-1 '00'  is code for successful transaction   but in this case the code  was shown as "000".

6.             The OPs no.3 and 4 have produced so many documents including  copies of customer advice regarding ATM code which are Ex.OPs3&4/15  to Ex.OPs.3&4/19  wherein  the code shows on  each transaction  in three digit and   '0'  is always prior to the code i.e.  response code 053, 000, 094 and 063  etc.  The OPs no.3&4 have produced  document  Ex.OPs.3&4/25 which is  transaction slip of Axis Bank  which shows   the transaction code as 058.  Learned counsel for the OPs has stated that  to avoid  any type of manual addition or deletion in the response code, the software  of the ATM has been upgraded so that it pre-fixes one extra '0'  on the generated response code.  So, the code  " 000 "  is meant for successful transaction.  Learned counsel for the OPs no.3&4 has produced ATM cash balance log dated 04.02.2016 which is Ex.OPs 3&4/3 which confirms that successful transaction number 7074  at 20:14 was made  and cash balance  of ATM was reduced.

7.             Further, learned counsel for the complainant  has argued that they had demanded  CCTV footage  but same has not been produced by the OPs.  The OPs no. 3&4 have stated that CCTV  footage is not necessary  because  there is no dispute regarding identity of the person.  Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the ruling namely State Bank of India Vs. Sansar Chand Kapoor & Another, III (2015) CPJ 135 (NC) . We have perused the said ruling and found that  in that case the complainant was claiming that he had not made any use of the ATM but in the present case  the case of the complainant is that  he himself used the ATM. So, it is not disputed in the instant case  who had withdrawn the amount.  It is well known fact that CCTV camera only captures the face of the person using the  ATM to identify him and is not focused on the key board or on the cash dispensing window.  It is not the case of the complainant that he did not use the ATM. So, the question of identifying the user did not arise.  We also taken  inference from State Bank of India Vs. K.K.Bhalla II (2011) CPJ 106 ( NC).

8.             Another aspect of the case is that the complainant  also withdrawn  cash on the same day i.e. on 04.02.2016  in the same card bearing number 5048840419000022350 on ATM of the State Bank of Patiala i.e. OP no.3  which bears  ID number S10G500026003 which is also situated towards  the other side  of State Bank of Patiala  i.e.  towards the Khadi Bhandar/court at 20:16. This fact has been concealed by the complainant  in the present complaint From the perusal of the documents  two entries  of Rs.10000/- each have been made in cash balance  log Ex.OPs3&4/3  and it also shows from Ex.OPs3&4/22 . The complainant knowingly concealed this fact from the Fora. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble State Commission Punjab  in First Appeal no.153  of 2014  decided on 09.09.2014.

9.             In view of the above discussion, we  find that  transaction  was successfully done. As such we find no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                 

                Announced

                November 25, 2016

 

 

 

      ( Sarita Garg)                                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                         

Member                                            President

 

 

 

BBS/-