Haryana

Karnal

127/13

Vujinder Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

D.R. Goel

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.127 of 2013

                                                          Date of instt.: 6.03.2013

                                                          Date of decision: 8.01.2016

 

 

Vijender Mohan son of Sh.Bashesher Nath resident of House No.116/13, Dhobi Mohalla, Karnal.

.                                                                               ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Manager, Punjab National Bank, GT Road, Karnal.

                                                                           ………  Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.D.R.Goel Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for the Opposite Party.

ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,   on the averments that he was having savings account No.0259000110318538 in the Opposite Party-bank. On 25.12.2012 at about 14:05 and again on 14:09 he tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.15000/- from the ATM Machine with the help of ATM Card issued to him. He put his ATM card into process in the ATM machine installed outside the main Branch of the Opposite Party,  but the same could not be processed and he received slips both the times of transaction declined. He was in urgent need of money, therefore, he used ATM card in another ATM machine at 14:15 to withdrew an amount of Rs.10000/-.  After some time he received a message of debit of Rs.15000/- from his account. He contacted the bank authorities  on 26.12.2012 and gave written complaint. He also made complaint on toll free number  180001802222  on 28.12.2012, vide complaint No.59127897. An E-mail complaint was also sent to ATM Cell of the Opposite Party.  Again on 7.1.2013 he made written complaint to Opposite Party, but of no avail. He also requested for  footage regarding the transaction of withdrawal, if any, and agreed to deposit requisite charges for that purpose, but of no avail. Ultimately, he got served legal  notice upon the Opposite Party on 12.2.2013, but the same also did not yield any result. On account of deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party, he suffered mentally, physically and financially.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs and that the complaint is unfounded and has been filed just to harass the Opposite Party  with malafide intention.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that transaction of the complainant was successful. The Opposite Party  made reference to ATM Call Centre, Delhi and ATM  reconciliation  Centre Delhi  regarding the  transaction  in question and it was made clear that transaction was successful regarding the complaint No.59127897  dated 28.12.2012.  No error  was found in the J.P.Roll.  Even the ATM Engineer was called and he submitted report dated 25.1.2013 that  transaction of the complainant was successful.  It has further been submitted that  bank had CCTV footage and the complainant could see the same during working hours of the bank. CCTV footage could also be provided in CD after depositing requisite fee.  However,  the complainant neither wanted to see CCTV footage nor deposited the expenses for obtaining CD of the footage. It has further been averred that ATM card can be operated only by using the password provided to the customer by the bank, which is always within his personal knowledge.ATM card cannot be operated by any other person without ATM card and without knowing ATM card number and pin number.  In this way, there was no responsibility or liability of the Opposite Party as there was no deficiency in services on its part. Factum of receiving notice has been admitted, but it has been submitted that reply to the notice was given on 20.9.2013.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of Shri Hardev Singh, Chief Manager, Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                 As per the case of the complainant, he put his ATM card in the ATM Machine installed outside the Opposite Party-bank for withdrawal of Rs.15000/- at 14:05  and  again  at 14:09, but both the times he received slip that transaction was declined. Thereafter, at 14:15, he withdrew amount of Rs.10,000/- from another ATM Machine. However,  he received a message on his mobile debiting an amount of Rs.15000/- from his account. On the other hand, Opposite Party  has asserted that transaction at 14:09 was successful as per the J.P.Roll and report of the ATM engineer and the complainant had in fact withdrawn the amount of Rs.15000/- in that transaction.

 

7.                 A  perusal of the copy of the statement of the account of the complainant shows that on 25.12.2012 he was having an amount of Rs.4,15,601.18P in his account and he had done two transactions  by withdrawing an amount of Rs.15000/- and then Rs.10000/-on that day leaving his balance as Rs.3,90,601.18P. Documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 ,the slips of ATM Machines are the most material.  As per Ex.C2, the complainant on 25.12.2012 tried to withdraw the amount from  ATM machine bearing ID No.D1025900 at 14:05 by putting his ATM card for the purpose of processing, but the transaction was declined. Ex.C3 indicates that complainant  again put his ATM card  for processing in the same ATM machine at 14:09, but the transaction was again declined.  Ex.C4 goes to show that at 14:15 he used his ATM machine card in another ATM Machine bearing ID NoD.5025900 and withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/-.Thus, it is emphatically clear  from these documents that only one transaction of the complainant for withdrawal of Rs.10000/- was successful at 14:15  on 25.12.2012 and the other two transactions one at 14:05 and another at 14:09 from another ATM machine bearing ID No.D1025900 were declined.

 

8.                 According to the case of the Opposite Party, an amount of Rs.15000/- was withdrawn by the complainant on 25.12.2012 at 14:09 from ATM machine bearing ID No.D5025900 and in order to substantiate this plea, documents Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 have been produced, which show that transaction made by the complainant at 14:09 was successful and there was no error in the J.P.Roll.

 

9.                 Thus, the material question arises as to whether the complainant could operate two separate ATM Machines at the same time i.e.  at 14:09 on 25.12.2012.  According to Ex.C3 he put his ATM card in ATM Machine bearing ID No. D 1025900 at 14:09, but the transaction was declined. Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 show that he put his ATM card in another ATM  machine bearing ID No.D5025900 at 14:09 and the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.15000/- was successful. The Opposite party has not been able to explain as to how the complainant could be able to do two transactions at the same time i.e. at 14:09 one from ATM Machine bearing ID No.D1025900 and the other from ATM machine bearing ID No. D5025900.  There may be no error in the J.P.Roll or report of the ATM Engineer, but practically it could not be possible that the complainant could operate two separate ATM Machines at the same time.  These circumstances indicate that there could be some technical error or defect  of the either of the ATM machines, but the Opposite party has not been able to lead any evidence which may show that the complainant had not  put his ATM card in ATM  machine, bearing ID No.1025900 at 14:09 and he used  only the ATM machine bearing  ID No.D5025900.

 

10.               No doubt, the ATM card was in possession of the complainant and he could only have knowledge regarding the pin number, but at the same this fact has remained unexplained that while he was  using the ATM machine  bearing ID No.1025900, how he could use another ATM Machine bearing ID No.D1025900 at the same time.  It is also  worth while to add that in the written statement the Opposite Party has specifically pleaded that CCTV footage was available, which could be best available evidence to prove that the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.15000/- from  the ATM Machine bearing ID No.D1025900   at 14:09 on 25..12.2012,  but the said evidence has been withheld by the Opposite party for the reasons best known to it, therefore, adverse inference is to be withdrawn against the Opposite Party.

 

11.               In view of the foregoing discussion, we arrive at the conclusion that it could not be possible for the complainant to use his ATM card for withdrawal of the amount in two separate ATM machines at the same time. Therefore, the complainant cannot be made to suffer for no fault and technical defect in the ATM machines of  the Opposite party, according to which at 14:09 the transaction was declined by the ATM Machine No. D1025900          and the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.15000/- was shown successful by ATM machine bearing ID No. D5025900   In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite party.

 

12.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite party to make the payment of Rs.15000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at bank rate from 25.12.2012 till realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses.  The Opposite party shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:08.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                 (Anil Sharma ) 

                   Member.

 

 

 

                   Vijender Mohan Versus Manager, PNB

 

Present:-       Sh.D.R.Goel Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been has been accepted.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:08.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                 (Anil Sharma ) 

                   Member