Haryana

Karnal

315/2012

Naresh Kumar S/o Raja Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India., UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. Sharma

27 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.315 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt. 3.07.2012

                                                          Date of decision:19.03.2015

 

Naresh Kumar son of Shri Raja Ram, Q.H.Talbros Ltd. Langha Industrial Estate, Chakrata Road, Dehradun, now resident of village Nissing District  Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun.

2.The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, near Bus stand, Karnal.

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

 

 

Present:-       Sh.A.K.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.S.K.Malhotra Advocate for the OP No.1.

                    Sh.Manjul Mishra Advocate for the OP No.2.

ORDER

                        The  complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that   on 25.12.2011 at about 9.00PM he went to the ATM of OP No.2 and tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- four times but no amount was disbursed by the ATM to the complainant and thereafter the complainant went to Nissing and withdrew the amount from the HDFC Bank in the sum of Rs.40,000/-  by using ATM Card  four times but  he was surprised  to know that a sum of Rs.34040/- was deducted  by the UCO bank  OP No.2 and thereafter the complainant reported to the OP No.2 but in vain. The complainant has alleged that the total limit for withdrawal of ATM was  Rs.40,000/- and as such the sum of Rs.74084/- cannot be said to have been withdrawn legally. Thus,  alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, he has filed the present complaint  and  has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the amount of Rs.34040/- to the complainant alongwith harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.  In support of his averments, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, bank statement Ex.C2, complaints Ex.C3 to Ex.C9.

2.                On notice the OP No 1. appeared and filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint doesnot disclose any cause of action as it was the ATM of UCO Bank OP no.2  which was allegedly used and the mere fact that the complainant is having a Saving Account with the OP No.1,  at its Branch at Dehradun, doesnot reflect any negligence or deficiency in services on its part in any manner.  So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It has also been alleged that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint.

                   On merits, it was contended that as per the investigation report, the transactions were successful and it is incorrect that no amount was disbursed to the complainant.

                   The OP No.2 in its written statement   has also raised the preliminary objections that the complainant has no loucs standi to file the present complaint ;  that the complaint was not maintainable and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.

                   On merits, it was contended that as per withdrawal transaction report, transaction bearing Sr. No. 133 to 136 were actually made on 24.12.2011 and not on 25.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.34,000/- i.e. Rs. Rs.10,000/- , Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4000/- respectively and the said transactions were successful transactions as per the Journal Posting Roll.  The complainant had also tried transaction from the ATM of answering OP 5^th time  at 9:53 but this time the transaction was unable to process since daily withdrawal limit has reached and this fact is evident from the J.P.Roll. Thus, it was alleged that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP

 

 

No.2 and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that   on 25.12.2011 at about 9.00PM he went to the ATM of OP No.2 and tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- four times but no amount was disbursed by the ATM to the complainant and thereafter the complainant went to Nissing and withdrew the amount from the HDFC Bank in the sum of Rs.40,000/-  by using ATM Card  four times but  he was surprised  to know that a sum of Rs.34040/- was deducted  by the UCO bank  OP No.2 and thereafter the complainant reported to the OP No.2 but in vain. The complainant has alleged that the total limit for withdrawal of ATM was Rs.40,000/- and as such the sum of Rs.74084/- cannot be said to have been withdrawn legally.  In support of his averments, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, bank statement Ex.C2, complaints Ex.C3 to Ex.C9.

 

5.                However, as per contention of the OP no.1 there was no deficiency in services on the part of OP No.1. However, it revealed that the complainant used the ATM of OP No.2 at Karnal on 24.12.2011 and of HDFC Bank at Nissing on 25.12.2011 and both the transactions were successful as per J.P.Rolls and as such deduction of amount from the account of complainant on 24.12.2011 and 25.12.2011 has rightly been shown.

 

                    The OP No.2 has also denied any deficiency  on its part and has contended that in fact the complainant used the ATM of OP No.2 at Karnal and as per J.P.Roll, the said transactions were complete and no excess amount was found during investigation in the ATM Machine. The OP No.2 has also taken the stand that the complainant tried to withdrew the amount for the fifth time  but the said transaction was rejected as the complainant had already withdrawn the maximum limit amount of Rs.40,000/- per day and as such there was no deficiency in services on the part of OP No.2.

 

6.                 Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, it emerges that there is no dispute that the complainant is ATM holder of OP No.1 and he used the ATM Machine of OP no.2 at Karnal. The OP No. 2 has placed on record  J.P.Roll Ex.O2/B wherein it has been shown that the complainant has used  ATM issued by the OP No.1 to withdrew the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 24.12.2011 at 21:48 vide  token no.3362 and a sum of  Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn.    The complainant used his ATM at 21:50  on 24.12.2011 and withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- vide token no.3364. The complainant again withdrew a sum of Rs.4,000/- on 24.12.2011 at 21:51 vide token No.3365 and again withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 24.12.2011 at 21:52 vide token No.3366. Thus, the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.34,000/-  on 24.12.2011 by using ATM Machine of OP no.2 and not on 25.12.2011 (as mentioned in the complaint)  in a very clandestine manner.

 

                   It is pertinent to mention here that complainant used the ATM of OP No.2 again on 24.12.2011 at 21:53 vide token No.3367 but the said  transaction was not successful as the daily withdrawal limit had   already been completed as shown in Ex.O2/B. The said four transactions vide which a sum of Rs.34,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant from the ATM of OP No.2 has been reflected  in the statement Ex.O2/2 at Sr.No. 133 to 136.

 

                    It has also come in evidence  that the OP no.1 received the complaint Ex.O2/D and OP no.1 asked the OP No.2 to verify the truthfulness of the said transactions and OP  no.2 reported the matter  vide  Ex.O2/E that all the transactions were successful  in view of the successful report of J.P.Log as shown in Ex.O1. The Ops have placed on record detailed investigation report showing withdrawal of amount by the complainant by using the ATM Machine of OP no.2 as shown in Ex.O3 to Ex.O16. 

 

                    Therefore, there is voluminous evidence on the file in order to infer that the complainant had withdrawn the amount on 24.12.2011 at 21:48 onwards  from UCO Bank OP No. 2and not on 25.12.2011 which has been mentioned with a  view to mis lead the District Forum and in order to emphasize that the amount more than Rs.40,000/- cannot be withdrawn on the same day i.e. on 25.12.2011.

 

7.                 The argument that   no CC footage has been placed on the file by the Ops and as such the Ops concealed the material evidence and  thus  complaint was liable to be accepted is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the order passed by the Hon,ble State Commission   in the appeal  No.227 of 2013  decided on 23.5.2013  titled  Bank of India Versus Ashok Kumar.  In the said Judgment, the Hon, ble State

Commission has held as below:

 

                                                          “Even otherwise, the ATM card remains with the possession of the complainant alongwith its secret number and nobody can withdraw any amount without secret code number.”

 

                     Same view  has been taken by the  Hon,ble National Commission in case State Bank of India Vs.K.K.Bhalla in revision petition no. 3182 of 2008 (2011(2) RCR 292 (NC).

                 The Hon’ble State Commission, U.T.Chandigarh has also taken the same view.

                    Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down  by the Hon’ble State Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission , U.T.Chandigarh in case Shri Sarabjit Singh Lahri Versus PNB and another, 2003(1) CPC page 425.

 

8.                Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above referred authorities and having regard to the fact that the complainant has twisted the facts of the case and has mis-used the process of the District Consumer Forum, with a malafide intention, we dismiss the present complaint. We are also constrained to burden the complainant with a sum of Rs.5000/-  in view of the Mandatory provisions of Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. The cost so imposed be deposited in the Consumer Legal Head. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 19.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.A.K.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.S.K.Malhotra Advocate for the OP No.1.

                    Sh.Manjul Mishra Advocate for the OP No.2.

 

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

Announced
dated: 19.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.