DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 32/15
Shri Shiv Dayal
S/o Shri Bansi Lal
R/o B-37 A, Street No. 3
Kanti Nagar Extension
Delhi – 110 051 ….Complainant
Vs.
- State Bank of India
Branch Seelampur Phase – 3
SBI, Welcome, Seelampur Phase – 3
Shahdara, Delhi – 110 053
- Punjab National Bank
5, Sansad Marg
New Delhi – 110 001 ….Opponents
Date of Institution: 22.01.2015
Judgment Reserved for : 24.08.2016
Judgment Passed on : 01.09.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
The complainant Shri Shiv Dayal has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against State Bank of India (OP-1) and Punjab National Bank (OP-2).
2. The case of the complainant was that on 07.12.2014 at 8.24 a.m. vide TXN No. 3234, he obtained a balance enquiry slip from the ATM ID-HCO-1250 situated at Bihari Colony, Shahdara and an amount of Rs. 69,303.81 was shown as credit amount in his saving account No. 10174330184, which was maintained by him in the State Bank of India, Seelampur Phase -3 branch, Shahdara. He used his ATM Debit Card for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- which was not paid to him by the ATM machine inspite of displaying the ATM machine screen “To Collect the Cash”. He kept waiting for about 2-3 minutes, but the beep was continuously going on. SMS message was conveyed over his mobile phone no. 7838069595, intimating that vide TXN no. 3235 (8.25 a.m.) the amount of Rs. 10,000/- vide Debit Card xxxxxxxxxxx2587 had been debited from his saving account.
In order to ascertain the proper functional of the said ATM machine, he again used the same for withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 1,000/- at about 8.27 a.m. Though, on ATM machine “Transaction Declined”, but an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was debited from his account, which was conveyed through SMS message. Immediately, thereafter, at about 8.28 a.m., the said amount of Rs. 1,000/- deducted from his account was credited to him with the remarks through SMS that “Reverse ATM WDL” and total of available balance was shown as Rs. 59,303.81 out of total available balance of Rs. 69,303.81.
He has further stated that in order to ascertain the position of withdrawal amount of Rs. 10,000/- from PNB ATM at 8.47 a.m. (on 07.12.2014), he demanded mini statement from PNB ATM vide TXN no. 3240 where the above amount was also shown debited from his SBI bank account. He made complaint with helpline of SBI on 07.12.2014 vide complaint no. 429215338729 and accordingly on 12.12.14 at 21.50 p.m. the helpline through SMS message on his mobile no. 7838069595 intimated that “The ATM bank has confirmed the transaction as successful. Relevant documents sent”, whereas no credit of the deducted amount was given to him. He made complaints to SBI as well as PNB banks, which were not attended. Hence, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from both the banks.
3. In the WS, filed on behalf of SBI (OP-1), they have taken the plea that they were not liable as the complainant had used ATM of PNB bank (OP-2) and it was OP-1 bank who was maintaining his saving bank account. The complainant had not alleged any grievances against OP-1 bank. He was provided all the required information. It has further been stated that account of the complainant has been debited to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- as on enquiry, transaction no. 3235 (8.25a.m.) was successful. Other pleas of the complainant have also been denied.
In the WS of PNB bank (OP-2), it has been stated that there was no deficiency of services on the part of OP-2. The complainant was not a consumer of OP-2 and OP-2 had not provided any services to the complainant nor charged any consideration for that. It has further been stated that the complainant withdrew an amount of Rs. 10,000/- vide transaction no. 3235 and response code for this transaction was 000, which means that the transaction was successful. Further, transaction no. 3236 for an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was unsuccessful and the amount was reversed in his account.
It has further been stated that the complainant has not filed the transaction slip bearing no. 3235, though, he has filed transaction slip for 3234 and 3236. It is further stated that OP-2 verified the cash from its ATM on 07.12.2014 and as per branch cash reconciliation statement, no excess amount was found on 07.12.2014. Other pleas of the complainant have also been denied.
4. The complainant has filed rejoinders to the WS of OP-1 and OP-2, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.
5. In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself, who has deposed on affidavit. In the affidavit, he has deposed that the facts in his complaint be read as an integral part of his affidavit.
In defence, SBI (OP-1) has examined Shri Ram Pravesh, Branch Manager, who has deposed on affidavit. He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS. He has got exhibited statement of accounts (Ex. OP-1/1), letter written by the bank to the complaint (Ex. OP-1/2) and its postal receipts (Ex. OP-1/3).
In defence, PNB (OP-2) has examined Shri Mahender Singh Yadav, who has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS. In their WS, he has got exhibited the Switch Center Report giving detail of the transactions (Ex. OP-2/1), certified copy of Journal Log generated by the ATM of OP-2 (Ex. OP-2/2) and reconciliation statement (Ex. OP-2/3).
6. We have heard the complainant and the Ld. Counsel for both Ops and have perused the material placed on record. It has been argued by the complainant that CCTV footage have not been provided to the complainant.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OP-1 has stated that they have no liability as the amount was not withdrawn from their ATM, but they were only maintaining the account of the complainant. Further, the arguments, which have been taken on behalf of PNB (OP-2) that CCTV footage does not have any bearing on the complaint. They have further argued that the transaction was successful and the complainant has not filed the transaction slip bearing no. 3235.
From the documents and the evidence produced on behalf of the complainant as well as both OPs, it is evident that the complainant has used ATM of PNB bank (OP-2) for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was debited to his account no. 10174330184 being maintained by SBI (OP-1). Since SBI was only maintaining his account and have debited an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, SBI (OP-1) have no liability as it was only a bank who was maintaining his account. The only deficiency, if any, which may arise, was on the part of OP-2. However, their defence has been that the complainant have not filed transaction slip bearing no. 3235 through which an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn.
Admittedly, the complainant has not filed any transaction slip bearing no. 3235. On the contrary, PNB (OP-2) have filed Switch Center Report giving details of the transactions, which has been got exhibited as Ex. OP-2/1. If Ex. OP-2/1 is perused, it is noticed that transaction no. 3235 at 8.24 a.m. for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been shown as successful. Not only this, prior transaction of 3234 at 8.24 a.m. for balance enquiry, has been shown as successful. Prior to this, transaction no. 3233 for withdrawal of Rs. 1,500/- has been shown as successful. Even the later transaction no. 3236 for cash withdrawal of Rs. 1,000/- has been shown as successful. The subsequent transactions have also been shown as successful. From this, it can be gathered that when all the transactions have been shown as successful and transaction no. 3235, through which the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- have not been withdrawn by the complainant. Further, reconciliation sheet Ex. OP-2/3 does not show any excess amount. Thus, from the evidence of PNB (OP-2), it can be concluded that the transaction no. 3235 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- made by the complainant was successful. His plea that he has not provided any CCTV footage have no bearing as “Non-Supply of Video Footage” does not affect the case of the complainant. Even, it has been laid down in SBI Vs. Om Prakash Saini [I (2013) CPJ 749 (NC)] that non-supply of video footage have no bearing on claim of the complainant.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his complaint. Hence, the same deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed. There is no order to cost.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
