CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/258/13

            Date of Institution:-    09.05.2013

              Order Reserved on:- 01.12.2023

                            Date of Decision:-     01.03.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mamta Devrani Chandola

W/o Sh. Atul Chandola

R/o Lokpriya Gopinath Vardolai Marg,

Chanakyapuri, New Delhi - 110021

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Punjab National Bank

Head Office:

7, Bhikaji Cama Place

New Delhi – 110067

2. Punjab National Bank

Branch at:

Rakesh Dutt Building,

Gulmohar Enclave,

New Delhi – 110049

3. Punjab National Bank

Vidhan Sabha Road,

Dehradun - 248001

        .…..Opposite Parties

   ORDER

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that she is having saving bank account no.442201300000879 with OP-3. The OP-3 has issued ATM Card No.5126520018308440. On 31.12.2011, she along with her husband has gone to ATM, PNB, Green Park, New Delhi for withdrawal of Rs.4,000/- but the machine dispensed only Rs.800/- i.e. 8notes of Rs.100 each. A sum of Rs.4000 was deducted from her account. She immediately lodged a complaint no.56885794 with customer care centre of OP-1 and it was told to her that a sum of Rs.3200/- will be credited to her account. On 02.01.2012, (as first was Sunday) her husband went to PNB, Green Park, New Delhi to lodge a complaint but complaint was not taken. The amount was not credited to her account. She has received a call after 20-25 days from Head Office, PNB and told that problem will be solved within a week and Rs.3200 will be credited in her account. She has given fax to OP-3 number of times but in vain. She has also written a letter to Banking Ombudsman but her complaint was rejected as she received a letter dated 14.03.2013. There is deficiency of service on the part of OPs as Rs.4000/- were deducted from her account though only Rs.800/- were disbursed by ATM machine. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OPs have filed the reply to the effect that there is no allegation of negligence against them. The JP logbook and other documents including reconciliation sheet show that amount was found tallied. The transaction dated 31.12.2011 was successful and dispension was of Rs.4000/-. The complainant has filed the complaint after one and half years from the date of transaction. The OPs are not responsible for less dispension of amount from ATM. The allegations are false and frivolous and same are denied.

3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein she has reiterated the stand taken in the compliant and denied the averments of the written statement.

4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version the complaint.

6. The OPs have filed the affidavit in evidence and wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement.
7. We have heard the complainant and perused the entire material on record.

8. It is clear from the facts on record that complainant is having saving bank account no.442201300000879 with OP-3 which has issued ATM Card bearing no. 5126520018308440 to her. On 31.12.2011, the husband of the complainant has gone to the ATM of OP-2 to withdraw a sum of Rs.4,000/-. The ATM machine has allegedly dispensed Rs.800/- instead of Rs.4000/- though a sum of Rs.4000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant.

9. The complainant has immediately lodged a complaint no.56885794 with customer care of OP-1. The husband of complainant has visited OP-2 on 02.01.2012 but no written complaint was taken.

10. The version of the OP is that the JP logbook shows that the amount was tallied meaning thereby that a sum of Rs.4000/- was dispensed by the ATM machine.

11. The complainant has lodged the complaint with customer care of OP-1. The OPs have failed to come up with any explanation about the fate of the complaint lodged by complainant with customer care. The Manager of OP-2 was informed on 02.01.2012 about the issue who failed to take any action.

12. The OPs have not taken footage of the CCTV installed at the ATM premises to show that a sum of Rs.4000/- has been dispensed by the ATM. The OPs could have counted the cash in ATM machine on 02.01.2012 when complaint was lodged with OP-2. The counting of the notes after the receipt of complaint by customer care or on the day of lodging the complaint with OP-2 would have resolved the issue. The Annexure-A filed by OP show that balance was calculated up to 07.01.2012 but there is nothing in Annexure-A to show the cash balance in the ATM on 31.12.2011 or on 01.01.2012 or 02.01.2012. The OPs have failed to take timely action despite the fact that matter was brought to the notice of OP-2 as well as to the customer care centre of the OPs.
13. There is nothing on record that a sum of Rs.4000/- was dispensed by ATM instead of Rs.800/-. There is nothing on the record to view the testimony of complainant with the aid of spectacles.

14. The OPs have not taken timely action despite the receipt of complaint at customer care centre as well as bringing the facts to the notice of OP-2. The entire facts show that there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs to resolve the issue in time due to which complainant has to suffer a loss of Rs.3200/-.

15. Hence, in view of our discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OPs shall refund the amount of Rs.3200/- with interest @7% p.a. from the filing of the complaint till its realization. The complainant has undergone mental agony so she is entitled for compensation on this score also. The OP shall pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation. The OP shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of order failing which complainant is entitled for interest @7% p.a. on compensation from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 01.03.2024.