Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/533

Udal s/o Jagdish Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Yashbir Chaudhary

12 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                 Complaint No: 533 of 05.08.2014

                                                                                                                     Date of Decision: 20.02.2015

                                                                                                                   

Udal s/o Sh.Jagdish Singh, resident of House no.340, Gali no.2, Preet Vihar, Near Thapar Coloncy, Chander Nagar, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

Versus 

1. Punjab National Bank, Bokhair, District Aligarh, through its Branch Manager.

2. IDBI Bank Limited, Civil Lines, College Road, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

3. Reserve Bank of India, Chandigarh, Punjab, through its Manager.

…..Opposite parties 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                   Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:       Sh.Yashbir Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Sunil Srivastav, Advocate for OP1.

                   Sh.N.S.Rana, Advocate for OP2.

                   None for OP3.

 

                   

                        ORDER

 

(SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

 

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Udal s/o Sh.Jagdish Singh, resident of House no.340, Gali no.2, Preet Vihar, Near Thapar Coloncy, Chander Nagar, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred to as ‘complainant’) against Punjab National Bank, Bokhair, District Aligarh, through its Branch Manager and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and for causing mental agony, torture and harassment alongwith interest @ 18% and to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant alongwith any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is operating bank account with the OP2, vide account no.270104000054728 and ATM card no.45877727001232208. The complainant used the abovesaid ATM card  for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 17.12.13 at Punjab National Bank OP1 at Bokhair Aligarh Bulandshehar (U.P.), the said account debited, but cash was not dispensed from ATM of OP1. The matter was reported to customer care Bombay by the complainant, vide complaint no.270/431157 and complaint no.270/4478703 regarding the said facts. Still in view of the said complaints, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not re-credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant also sent an application to the Hon’ble Ombudsman Banking Punjab, Chandigarh on 18.2.14, but despite that the amount of the complainant was not credited in his account. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the parts of the Ops, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The transaction dated 17.12.13 at 12.21 at Punjab National Bank was successful and response code of the transaction was ‘00’ meaning thereby that transaction was successful; the ATM account ID 51650021D1619900 is maintained in the concerned branch in which there is complete detail of withdrawal of the amount of the relevant date, which clearly shows that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was delivered to the complainant and as per system of ATM Load Reconciliation Status, there was no difference of amount and the status was showing the difference a “0”, which means there was no difference of amount. Further stated that IDBI Bank raised issue with concern department of the answering OPs at Mumbai, but after considering all the facts of the case, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the bank stating that “the transaction was successful’ and the complainant was duly intimated about this decision. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, since the transaction took place at Khair, District Aligarh. On merits, denying the contents of all other paras, except para no.2, answering OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Ld. counsel for OP2 filed their written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. Further stated that on 21.12.13 the complainant the office of OP2 and complained that he did a cash withdrawal transaction of Rs.10,000/- from ATM of Punjab National Bank situated at Bokhair Aligarh, Bulanddhehar in U.P. on 17.12.13, but the cash was not dispensed from the said ATM machine, but his account was got debited with the said amount. Further stated that in respect of sharing of ATMs of different banks, the banks have a definite laid down procedure to deal with the customers of the other banks. There are laid down procedures and systems to avoid fraud and to protect the interest of customers. The rules prescribed in this regard, whenever a paying bank raises a chargeback on another bank for refund of the amount and the acquiring bank accepts the same the acquiring bank’s settlement account gets debited and paying bank’s account get credited for the disputed amount In this case, as per the NFS(National Financial Switch) arrangement and rules prescribed in this regard, the answering OP is issuing bank and Punjab National bank is acquiring bank. So, in this case the answering OP has raised chargeback on Punjab National Bank and asked for reversing the amount/entry and to settle the transaction, if there is any discrepancy, but the Punjab National Bank has rejected the claim on the ground that the transaction was successful. Therefore the answering OP has no further role to play in the issued and no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OP. So, the answering OP is not liable to pay Rs.10,000/-, interest or compensation. The present complaint is therefore be rejected on this short score only. On merits, admitting the contents of para no.1, 3, 4 submitted that the para no.2 need no reply and para no.11 to 14 is legal and further denying the contents of other remaining paras prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5.                OP3 filed his written statement submitting that the allegations made against them are totally denied and the complaint needs to be dismissed, as it is baseless, false and frivolous. Further submitted that the main grievance of the complainant is that cash of Rs.10,000/- was not dispensed while operation ATM Of PNB (OP1)  at Bokhair Aligarh, Bulandshehar (UP) on December 17,2013, but the said amount was debited from his account held with OP2 (IDBI Bank Ltd.). The complainant has stated that the matter was reported by him to the Customer Care, Mumbai, vide complaints no.270/431157 and 270/4478703. The complaint dated April 29, 2014 was sent to the Reserve Bank of India, Chandigarh, through Advocate Rajinder.K.Chopra and the same was rejected under clause 9(1) of BOS, 2006 since the complaint sent through advocate is not maintainable under the provisions of BO Scheme 2006. The complainant was duly advised vide letter dated May 27, 2014. As such, it is evident that answering OPs is in no way concerned with the complaint. Answering OP is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the adjudication of the dispute between account holder and his bankers i.e. IDBI and Punjab National Bank. Further submitted that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP3, as the OP3 is only performing statutory functions under BOS 2006. As such, the complainant is not consumer of the OP3. Further submitted that the complainant has not established in the instant case that he is a consumer of answergin OP or that answering OP has tendered any service to him. It is relevant to mention here that the complaints are entertained and redressed at free of costs by Banking Ombudsman. Despite, knowing the fact that this answering OP has duly discharged its statutory functions under the abovesaid BO scheme the complainant has filed a complaint in this Forum arraying answering OP, which is not legally tenable.

6.                Ld. counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Udal Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Anil Kumar, Manager, Punjab National Bank, Khair, District Aligarh Ex.RA1, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement of OP1 and also attached documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. Whereas, Ld. counsel for OP2 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Ajit Walia s/o Sh.S.M.Walia, IDBI Bank Limited, Civil Lines, College Road, Ludhiana Ex.RA2, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement of OP2 and also attached documents Ex.R2/1 and Ex.R2/2.

7.                Sh.Ashok Kumar Bangur, Assistant Manager of OP3 had suffered a statement that the written reply filed by OP3 be also read the evidence of OP3 and closed the evidence of OP3.

8.                Case was fixed for arguments. At the time of arguments, none had come present on behalf of OP3.

9.                Ld. counsel for complainant argued orally that the complainant used the his ATM card  for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 17.12.13 at Punjab National Bank OP1 at Bokhair Aligarh Bulandshehar (U.P.), the said account debited, but cash was not dispensed from ATM of OP1. The matter was reported to customer care Bombay by the complainant, vide complaint no.270/431157 and complaint no.270/4478703 regarding the said facts. But despite the abovesaid complaints, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not credited in the account of the complainant. Further averred that OPs have failed to provide CCTV footages of the time, the complainant was withdrawing the money from the ATM so that truth could out. Moreover, averments made by the complainant that ’00’ code shows that the transaction was successful is not tenable, because there can be continue snag and also ‘00’ code is not very authentic.

10.              Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld. counsel for OP1 filed written arguments averring that the jurisdiction of this Forum is not involved in the present case, because cause of action arose in Aligarh from where the money was withdrawn and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP1. The complainant has withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from Branch Office Khair, District Aligarh of Punjab National Bank on 17.12.13 at 12.21 ATM DI619900 and the same transaction was successful and the response code of transaction was mentioned as ‘00’, which means that the transaction was successful. The list of ATM authorization response codes is already annexed as Ex.R2. Copies of the ATM transactions of the relevant date before and after the transaction of the complainant are also already annexed as Ex.R3. Further submitted that an ATM account ID 51650021D1619900 is maintained in the concerned branch in which there is complete detail of withdrawal of the amounts of the relevant date, which clearly shows that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was delivered to the complainant. Bedsides this there is a system of ATM Load Reconciliation Status and in case there is any difference or the amount is not paid to the customer, then the difference is shows in this status, but the said status is showing the difference as “0” which proves that there is no difference and the amount has been paid to the complainant. Prior to the filing of the present complaint, the complainant approached his bank i.e. IDBI Bank and IDBI Bank raised a claim with concerned department of answering OP at Mumbai. After considering all the facts of the case, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the bank stating that ‘the transaction was successful’ and the complainant was duly intimated about this decision. Further Ld. counsel for OP1 relied upon the judgements passed in cases titled as Partap Singh Mehra Vs SBI-IV(2010) CPJ 1 (UT Chandigarh), Rajeshwar Singh Vs State Bank and others-III (2008) CPJ 21 (UT Chandigarh), State Bank of India and another Vs Ashok Kumar Jaiswal-I (2009) CPJ 75 (Jharkhand State Commission, Ranchi), Satnam Singh Vs Punjab National Bank and another- 2012(2) CPJ 136 (Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh).

11.              Ld. counsel for OP2 argued orally that complainant visited the office of OP2 and complained that he withdrew the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of Punjab National Bank situated at Bokhair Aligarh, Bulandshehar in UP on 17.12.13, but the cash was not dispensed from the said ATM while his account got debited with the said amount. Further argued that on receiving the complaint, OP2 immediately taken up the matter with the Punjab National Bank and raised a claim of Rs.10,000/-, but the claim was rejected by the Punjab National Bank stating that the transaction was successful. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2.

12.              We have gone through the pleading of complainant as well as defence taken by OPs and gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of OP1 and also perused the entire record placed on file.

13.              It is evident that the complainant on 17.12.13 used the ATM machine of Punjab National Bank at Bokhar Aligarh Bulandshehar (UP) for the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and response code “00” shows that the transaction was successful as far as providing of the CCTV footage is concerned, some person is alleged to have withdrew the money, but in the present case it is not so. Ex.R2, R3 and R4 clearly shows that the transaction was successful and there is no discrepancy of any sort. The complainant has withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from Branch Office Khair, District Aligarh of Punjab National Bank on 17.12.13 at 12.21 ATM DI619900 and the same transaction was successful and the response code of transaction was mentioned as ‘00’, which means that the transaction was successful. The list of ATM authorization response codes is already annexed as Ex.R2. Copies of the ATM transactions of the relevant date before and after the transaction of the complainant are also already annexed as Ex.R3. Further submitted that an ATM account ID 51650021D1619900 is maintained in the concerned branch in which there is complete detail of withdrawal of the amounts of the relevant date, which clearly shows that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was delivered to the complainant. Bedsides this there is a system of ATM Load Reconciliation Status and in case there is any difference or the amount is not paid to the customer, then the difference is shows in this status, but the said status is showing the difference as “0” which proves that there is no difference and the amount has been paid to the complainant. Prior to the filing of the present complaint, the complainant approached his bank i.e. IDBI Bank and IDBI Bank raised a claim with concerned department of answering OP at Mumbai. After considering all the facts of the case, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the bank stating that ‘the transaction was successful’ and the complainant was duly intimated about this decision.

14.              Sequel to the above, discussion, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits with no order as to cost. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

                   Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:20.02.2015 

Hardeep Singh