Haryana

StateCommission

A/11/2018

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

RUPA CHAUDHARY - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY SAPEHIA

19 Mar 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                          First Appeal No.11 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution: 03.01.2018

                                                          Date of Decision: 19.03.2020  

 

 

Punjab National Bank, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad, through its Deputy Manager Mr. A.P. Mehta.

 

 

…..Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

VERSUS

 

 

1.      Rupa Chaudhary wife of Shri Kundan Kumar Jha, resident of House No.B/717, IInd Floor, Sainik Colony, Sector 49, Faridabad.

 

..…Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

 

2.      State Bank of India, DLF City-2, Gurgaon.

 

..…Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                    

 

 

 

                                                        

Present:     Shri Ajay Sapehia, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Anirudh Nanda, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Shri M.K. Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

 

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

 

          Punjab National Bank, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad-opposite party No.1 has filed the present appeal for challenging the order dated 04.12.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, whereby complaint preferred by Rupa Chaudhary-complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the appellant directed to credit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its debit till realization of amount and to pay Rs.3,100/- on account of mental tension, agony as well as harassment besides Rs.2,100/- towards litigation expenses.

2.      According to the complainant, she was having savings bank account with State Bank of India-opposite party No.2 and issued ATM card. On 03.05.2016, she used ATM of the appellant at 2-3 Chowk, NIT, Faridabad, in order to withdraw an amount of Rs.5,000/- but the said machine did not give any response despite several attempts. The complainant received a message from opposite party No.1 on phone at 8:59 P.M. about withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from her account. The complainant immediately blocked her ATM card by informing opposite party No.2 through customer care centre and lodged complaint with opposite party No.2 on 04.05.2016. However, the officials of opposite party No.2 advised her to lodge complaint with opposite party No.1. The complainant also lodged complaint with opposite party No.1 but no response to the same was forthcoming. On 16.05.2016, opposite party No.2 sent a message to the complainant that the complaint submitted by her had been closed as the transaction was successful. The complainant again made a complaint on 17.05.2016 through e-mail to opposite party No.2. Upon which, opposite party No.2 assured to look into the complaint and would give favourable response to the complainant but the complainant did not receive any favourable response from the opposite parties. The amount in question was not credited in the account of the complainant by the opposite parties. The complainant accordingly filed the complaint praying therein for directing the opposite parties to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in her account along with interest @ 24% per annum and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards expenses of telephone call as well as personal visits besides Rs.50,000/- for mental tension, agony and harassment apart from Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses to her.

3.      Upon notice, opposite party No.1 put in appearance and filed written version wherein it refuted the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant was neither an account holder nor consumer of opposite party No.1. As per JP log, transaction No.5705 was successful and no excess cash was found on 03.05.2016 at ATM ID QK016700. Opposite party No.1 had received a complaint through opposite party No.2 on 24.06.2016 and opposite party No.1 provided JP log to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of allegations levelled in the complaint and prayed for its dismissal.

4.      Opposite party No.2 put in appearance and filed written version wherein it admitted that the complainant was having account with opposite party No.2 and was issued ATM card, which stood blocked. Opposite party No.2 had received complaint from the complainant and after checking the records, the transaction of Rs.10,000/- was found successful. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations levelled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      In her evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit besides tendering documents (Annexure-1 to Annexure-3) whereas opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of A.P. Mehta while opposite party No.2 filed the affidavit of Ruchika Dutta.

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Forum allowed the complaint against opposite party No.1 and directed the said opposite party to credit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum, Rs.3,100/- on account of mental tension, agony as well as harassment besides Rs.2,100/- towards litigation expenses.

7.      Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going the through the record, the State Commission finds that as per JP log, transaction No.5705 dated 03.05.2016 was successful and no excess cash was found. In this regard, he has referred to switch transaction report dated 03.05.2016, which is available on the record of the learned District Forum as well as on Pages 36 and 37 of the appeal paper book. The journal printer (JP) log sheet in the ATM is the final proof of the transaction and is accepted across the world by all the banks. It cannot be manipulated by any person in any way whatsoever. The system is so secure that it cannot commit any error and if the account is not actually disbursed, then the account will be credited either the same day or within 2-3 days. There is no proof that the money was not disbursed by the ATM. Therefore, the transaction regarding withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant stood confirmed. In Dinesh Malik Versus State Bank of Patiala, 2016(1) C.P.J. 550, the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held that the documents filed by the bank showing the withdrawal from the ATM and the amount had not been returned back in the account holder, the same confirmed the transaction and thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the bank. To the same effect was the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Satyanarayan Pandey Versus State Bank of India and Others,2017(4) C.P.J. 199, where the transaction had been found successful as per the electronic general file and the complainant had not produced any proof showing that when he used his ATM card, the amount was not transacted.

8.      In view of the fact that the JP log sheet produced by opposite party No.1 confirmed successful transaction, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of opposite party No.2 in not disbursing the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

9.      Resultantly, the appeal is accepted, impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.7,600/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of the appellant/opposite party No.1 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, subject to appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 19.03.2020

(T.P.S. Mann) President

DR