Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/513/2012

Gagan Singh S/o Khajan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Devender Kumar

27 May 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                                Complaint No. 513 of 2012.

                                                                                                Date of Instt. 25.05.2012.

                                                                                                Date of Decision:27.05.2016

Gagan Singh aged about 37 years son of Sh. Khajan Singh, resident of House No. 692 Laxmi Garden, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                   ..Complainant

     Versus

 

1. State Bank of India, Basant Bihar, Delhi.
2. Axis Bank, Yamuna Nagar A.T.M.Brnach Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                             ..Respondents.

Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

            SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER  

Present:        Sh. Devender Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                     Sh. Harvinder Aneja,  Advocate counsel for respondent No.1.

                     Sh. Nalin Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

ORDER   

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that the Ops be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was illegally shown as withdrawn from the ATM and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that on dated 05.03.2012 son of the complainant went to the ATM of Axis Bank near ITI Yamuna Nagar to withdraw an amount of Rs. 10,000/- but due to some technical problem his son could not withdraw the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and ATM receipt (Annexure C-2) of the same is enclosed herewith. It has been further mentioned that first of all account was checked and ATM receipt (Annexure C-1) of the same is also enclosed herewith. When the payment was not released by the ATM Machine then the complainant went to the official of the Axis Bank and enquired about that but on asking of the officials of the Axis Bank, he went to his own bank i.e. State Bank of India (OP No.1) and after getting the detail of the account moved an application and the official of the State Bank of India told him that when they shall receive the amount from the Axis Bank, then they will inform to him but till today no amount has been paid. Hence, this complaint.  In support of his version, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copies of ATM receipts as Annexure C-1 to C-3, Photo copy of complaint detail sent by Bank Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 SBI Bank filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; complainant has filed this complaint only for the harassment of OP No.1; complainant has got no cause of action against the OP No.1 and on merit it has been mentioned that the complaint is totally wrong hence denied. In fact ATM can be operated by the real consumer not any other person. Moreover, huge transactions has been made by the user of ATM on dated 05.03.2012 at different different times which is evident from certified copy of record and statement of account Annexure R-1 to R-5. Moreover, if the consumer operates the ATM of Axis Bank then only Axis bank is liable to pay any amount and there is no cogent evidence of the complainant to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1. Even, till today OP No.1 Bank has not received any amount from Axis Bank. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint against OP No.1. In support of his version, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence photo copy of complaint details as Annexure R-1, Photo copies of transaction slips issued by Axis Bank as Annexure R-2, Certified copy of statement of account as Annexure R-3 & R-4, Photo copy of balance sheet as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.1.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant is account holder of State Bank of India as alleged in the present complaint, hence there is no relationship of consumer and supplied between the complainant and OP No.2; complaint is bad for mis joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been submitted that the true facts are that after going through the ATM slips attached with the complaint and cash log statement of ATM of OP No.2 dated 05.03.2012, it is evident that the complainant used the ATM of OP No.2 on 05.03.2012 and no cash of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn. Hence, no cash surplus was found at the end of the day of 05.03.2012 with Op No.2. Neither the complainant approached the OP No.2 nor amount was transferred through Visa Service Via State Bank of India to the Axis Bank pertaining to the ATM card used by the complainant on 05.03.2012. If any deduction in the account of complainant of SBI was done, it is the only SBI who can tell the true facts. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of version of OP No.2, counsel for Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gaurav Gupta, Officer Axis Bank ltd. as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Order 14 Rule 1 Act 5, year 1908 as Annexure R2/1, Photo copy of transaction slips as Annexure R2/2, Photo copy of ATM cash balancing report as Annexure R2/3, Photo copy of reconciliation report format as Annexure R2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the Op Bank and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

6.                     The moot question is whether the amount of Rs. 10000/-  has been drawn by the son of complainant through ATM Machine or not?

7.                     The version of the complainant is that first of all account was checked vide receipt bearing serial No.1067 (Annexure C-1) in which an amount of Rs. 77,918/- was shown as balance. After that son of the complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs. 10,000/- but no amount was disbursed to the son of the complainant and in this respect receipt bearing serial No. 1068 came out from the ATM machine in which disbursal amount has been shown as zero(0.00) (Annexure C-2) but the amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been shown as withdrawn from the account of the complainant vide this receipt bearing No. 1068 which is evident from account statement issued by the State Bank of India (Annexure R-3) which is totally wrong and illegal as the complainant has not received the said amount from the ATM machine.  After that also son of the complainant tried to withdraw the amount of Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt 1069, 1070 & 1073 but no amount was disbursed by the ATM machine and in this respect only Rs. 8/- each has been charged by the Axis Bank i.e. Op No.2 Bank. Even, after that complainant withdrew the amount of Rs. 10,000/- twice vide receipt No. 1074 & 1075 but at that time the amount of Rs. 10,000/- each was disbursed to the son of the complainant which is evident from the account statement Annexure R-3. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is only dispute in respect of the receipt No.1068 vide which an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been shown as withdrawn illegally whereas in fact no such amount was disbursed to the son of the complainant by the ATM machine of the Axis Bank.   

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs hotly argued that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops bank. Son of complainant has withdrawn the amount so many times from the ATM Machine of OP No.2 Bank and from the ATM machine of other bank on the same day. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further argued that if there is any deficiency then the Op No.2 Axis Bank is responsible as the son of the complainant has used the ATM machine of the Op No.2 Bank and if any amount was not disbursed to the son of the complainant then the Axis bank is liable to make the payment. However, the account of the complainant has been debited for three times for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each against the receipts No.1068, 1074 & 1075 which is evident from the account statement Annexure R-3. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1.

9.                      However, learned counsel for the Op No.2 hotly argued that complainant used the ATM Machine of OP No.2 Bank on 05.03.2012 and no cash of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn, even no cash was found surplus at the end of day i.e. on 05.03.2012 with the OP No.2 Bank. Learned counsel for the OP no.2 argued that Axis Bank has charged only Rs. 10,000/- twice from the Op No.1 Bank against the receipt bearing record No. 1074 & 1075 i.e. no amount has been charged by the Axis Bank from the OP No.1 bank account of receipt bearing record No.1068.  If the OP No.1 Bank has charged/ debited the account of the complainant for three (3) times then the Op No.1 bank is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 Bank and draw our attention towards the documents ATM transactions Annexure R-2/2 and R2/5.

10.                   After hearing the parties at length and going through the documents, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. We have perused the ATM receipts Annexure C-1 to C-3 carefully and minutely from which it is evident that vide receipt bearing record No.1067 (Annexure C-1) complainant checked his account and found available balance as Rs. 77918/- at 3.03 P.M. Further, from the perusal of ATM receipt bearing record No. 1068 (Annexure C-2) it is clearly evident that no amount has been disbursed to the user of the ATM card as withdrawal amount has been shown as (zero) 0.00. However, from the perusal of account statement filed by the Op No.1 Bank (Annexure R-3) it is clearly evident that an amount of Rs. 10020/- ( Rs. 10000+20/- as service charges) has been shown as debited from the account of the complainant. Furthermore, when the Op No.2 Bank claimed that their bank had charged only Rs. 10,000/- twice from the Op No.1 Bank which is evident from Annexure R2/5 reconciliation report and statement of account then how the OP No.1 Bank can debit the account of the complainant thrice of amounting to Rs.10,000/-. Even the OP No.1 Bank has totally failed to convince this Forum that when the receipt bearing record No. 1068 is showing as zero (0.00) then OP No.1 Bank in what manner has debited the amount of Rs. 10,000/- against the receipt bearing record No. 1068 from the account of the complainant. In the absence of any cogent evidence filed by both the opposite parties, we are of the considered view that there are some lapses on the part of both the Banks. Moreover, it was the duty of both the Banks to resolve the genuine grievances of the complainant but they did not do so which is clearly visible from the documentary evidence filed by the complainant as well as OPs Bank.

11.                   Although, it is the stand of OP No.2 Bank that they have charged Rs. 10,000/- twice from the Op No. 1 Bank instead of thrice. However, it is an internal matter between two banks which might be resolved at their own level but no effective steps have been taken by officials of both Banks due to which the complainant was forced to bear financial loss of Rs. 10,000/- which was actually not disbursed to the complainant vide receipt record No. 1068. As the amount was debited from the account of the complainant so, he was compelled him to file the present complaint for redressal of his grievances. However, OP No.1 (SBI) is at liberty to recover the amount of Rs. 10,000/- from OP No.2 (Axis Bank) if the OP No.2 Bank has charged Rs. 10,000/- thrice from the OP No.1 Bank, as the OP No.2 Bank has admitted in its reconciliation report and Accountant Statement (Annexure R2/5) that OP No. 2 Bank has recovered only Rs. 10,000/- twice from the OP No.1 Bank.

12.                   Now a days, it has been noticed that the officials of the Banks are doing the bank business as per their own wishes and do not bother to listen the genuine requests of the general public and  also do not follow the guidelines issued by the RBI from time to time.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs Bank and complainant is entitled for relief.           

13.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.1 Bank to refund an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its actual realization and OPs both Banks are also directed to pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.      

Dated: 27.05.2016.

                                                                                             ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                              PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                            

                                                                                             (  S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                               MEMBER