DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/59/2020

Date of Institution : 25.02.2020

Date of Decision : 15.02.2021

Swarn Kumar aged about 28 years son of Sh. Ram Ashish Sharma C/o Geeta Factory, Handiaya Road, Barnala.          …Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Abhishek Industries, Barnala through its Branch Manager.

2. Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) Branch Court Chowk, Barnala-148101 through its Branch Manager.

…Opposite Parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Rajinder Pal counsel for complainant. 

Sh. Pankaj Bansal counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. AK Jindal counsel for opposite party No. 2. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant namely Swarn Kumar has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as amended up to date)  against Punjab National Bank, Barnala and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is subscriber of saving bank Account No. 4877006900060104 with opposite party No. 1 and also got ATM for withdrawal of money. On 21.12.2019 the complainant visited ATM Kiosk of opposite party No. 2 and attempted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 2,500/- but that was not delivered to the complainant but account of the complainant was debited. So, he approached opposite party No. 1 who confirmed that cash of Rs. 2,500/- could not be dispensed due to electricity failure. The opposite party No. 1 also sent email dated 6.1.2020 to the concerned team mentioning customer complaint No. M164586575. The opposite party No. 1 also sent email dated 3.2.2020 to CO Bathinda that customer approached their branch on daily basis please solve the problem as soon as possible details given below. The opposite party No. 1 again sent email dated 5.2.2020 to CO Bathinda that they have checked the CCTV footage of 21.12.2019 on 12.09 PM from Dena Bank Bathinda with Dena Bank Manager and found that the cash was not dispensed at that time due to electricity failure. So, they request them to please reopen the complaint M164586575 and process it again. The customer feel harassment and visit branch day by day. But thereafter opposite parties kept mum and no satisfactory answer was given by the opposite party No. 1. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- on account of original amount.       

2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension  and harassment.             

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief as this Commission deems fit and proper.

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written reply taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that complaint is groundless and abuse of process of law. Further, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and he concealed material facts from this Commission.  

4. On merits, it is submitted by the opposite party No. 1 that cash of Rs. 2,500/- could not be dispensed due to electricity failure from the ATM Kiosk of Dena Bank i.e. opposite party No. 2 and same is lying with the opposite party No. 2. The answering opposite party moved various emails in order to remove the grievance of the complainant but the amount of Rs. 2,500/- which was not dispensed from the ATM of Dena Bank lies with the Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) and not with the answering opposite party. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of answering opposite party. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

5. The opposite party No. 2 filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant never approached the answering opposite party and also to Banking Ombudsmen, Chandigarh who deals with such type of matters. Further, complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. Further, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as this is outside the preview of the said Act. Further, this complaint is abuse of process of law and bad for non joinder of necessary party. 

6. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant never approached the answering opposite party nor lodged any complaint with the answering opposite party. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. Lastly, the opposite party No. 2 also prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Swarn Kumar Ex.C-1, copies of emails Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6, copy of complaint form Ex.C-7 and closed the  evidence.   

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dinesh Sangwan Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Deepak Kumar Branch Manager Ex.OP-2/1 and closed the evidence. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments also filed by the opposite party No. 2. 

10. It is admitted fact between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 that complainant is having saving account with ATM facility with the opposite party No. 1. It is also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that cash of Rs. 2,500/- could not be dispensed due to electricity failure from the ATM kiosk of Dena Bank opposite party No. 2 and same is lying with the opposite party No. 2. It is also admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that they have moved various emails to remove the grievance of the complainant but the amount of Rs. 2,500/- which was not dispensed from the ATM of Dena Bank lies with the Dena Bank and not with the answering opposite party. 

11. It is proved on the file vide copy of email dated 6.1.2020 sent by opposite party No. 1 to CO Bathinda that complainant tried to withdraw amount from Dena Bank ATM but amount was debited from account but money was not dispensed by the machine and customer care complaint Number is M164586575. Further, in email dated 21.1.2020 Ex.C-3 it is mentioned that complainant has withdrawn Rs. 2,500/- on 21.12.2019 from the ATM and amount was debited but ATM did not dispense the cash. Further, in email dated 3.2.2020 Ex.C-6 sent by opposite party No. 1 to CO Bathinda it is mentioned that customer approached their branch on daily basis please solve his problem as soon as possible. In other email dated 3.2.2020 sent by CO Bathinda to opposite party No. 1 Ex.C-4 it is mentioned that complaint has been closed. Further, in email dated 5.2.2020 Ex.C-5 sent by opposite party No. 1 to CO Bathinda it is mentioned that they have checked the CCTV footage dated 21.12.2019 on 12.09 PM from Dena Bank Barnala with Dena Bank manger and found that the cash was not dispensed at that time due to electricity failure so they requested to reopen the complaint and process it again as the customer feel harassment and visit branch day by day. Further, from the document Ex.C-7 it is proved  on the file that the complainant filed a written complaint with the opposite party No. 1. In this document it is also mentioned that prior to this complaint the complainant already filed an on line complaint at toll free number with complaint No. M164586575 dated 21.12.2019 which proved that complainant after the incident immediately filed an on line complaint at the toll free number of opposite party No. 1. But even filing of on line complaint, sending many emails and written complaint the opposite party No. 2 not refunded the amount to the complainant and also not given any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Further, the opposite party No. 2 to rebut these documents not filed any document except affidavit of Deepak Kumar Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda (earlier known as Dena Bank), Barnala Ex.OP-2/1 which is word to word repetition of the written version filed by the opposite party No. 2. In this affidavit the only plea was taken by the opposite party No. 2 is that the complainant never approached them so they have not solved his problem. From the email dated 5.2.2020 Ex.C-5 it is clearly admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that they have checked the CCTV footage of Dena Bank Barnala and found that cash was not dispensed at that time due to electricity failure which duly proved that complainant has not received the amount of Rs. 2,500/- from the ATM of opposite party No. 2. Further, the opposite party No. 2 also not produced on record any CCTV footage or any document to prove that the complainant received this amount. Even in their written version and affidavit of Deepak Kumar Ex.OP-2/1 the opposite party No. 2 not rebutted the email dated 5.2.2020  and also not submitted that cash was received by the complainant from the ATM machine. However, the opposite party No. 1 sent various emails to CO Bathinda to solve the problem of the complainant and also checked the CCTV footage of opposite party No. 2, so opposite party No. 1 tried their level best to help the complainant but it is the opposite party No. 2 who did not cooperate with the opposite party No. 1. From all these documents and admission of opposite party No. 1 we are of the view that by not returning the amount to the complainant is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 2. 

12. As a result of our above discussion, present complaint is  allowed and opposite party No. 2 is directed to refund Rs. 2,500/- (Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the complainant as the amount is lying with the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 is also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite party No. 2 is further directed to deposit Rs. 1,000/- as costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Commission. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay the above mentioned amount of Rs. 2,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

  15th Day of February 2021

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

 

            (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member