| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 44 of 23-2-2021 Decided on : 08-11-2023 Prem Kumar Bansal aged about 71 years, S/o Late Sh.Nand Lal, R/o Shakti Nagar, Street No.3, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus State Bank of India, Municipal Shopping Complex Branch (50224), Opp. Gole Diggi, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda through its Sr.Divisional Manager. Punjab National Bank (erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce), Gurugram, Distt. Gurugram.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh. R.L Mittal, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Sadhu Ram Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. A.S Grewal, for OP No.1. Sh. R.K Rampal, for OP No.2. ORDER R.L Mittal, President The complainant Prem Kumar Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against State Bank of India and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is a Retired employee of State Bank of Patiala and is drawing pension from the Bank of Patiala now merged with State Bank of India through his Pension Account bearing No.1006422489, Thc complainant is now aged about 71 years. He is also holding ATM card issued by opposite party No.1 for easily withdrawal of the amount at anytime in case of need even after the bank hours. On 14.4.2020, the complainant operated his ATM card in the ATM Machine of Oriental Bank of Commerce, now merged with Punjab National Bank, Kanhai Branch, Gurugram for the withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/- out of need of money vide transaction No. 6R516701:010511812957/11254900/000 but the ATM did not deliver/disburse amount to the complainant rather the transaction was unsuccessful. It is alleged that the complainant made another transaction from his ATM card after a few minutes from the another ATM Machine in the same cabin on the same day for the withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/- vide Transaction No.010511783766 which was successful and the amount of Rs.10,000/- was disbursed to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant came back from Gurugram to Bathinda after lockdown in the country and ultimately in August 2020, the complainant visited the branch of the opposite party No.1 for updating his Bank passbook and was shocked and surprised to note that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant twice on 14.4.2020 although the complainant was delivered cash of Rs.10,000/- only during the second transaction as the first transaction had failed. It is further alleged that the complainant then lodged a complaint with the opposite party No.1 on 5.8.2020 itself regarding wrong debit entry of Rs.10,000/- and the said complaint was lodged vide Ticket No.6510880864 on 7.8.2020 and thereafter the complainant received a message from the opposite party No.1 that the claim has been lodged with ATM Bank i.e. opposite party No.2 and the same will be resolved within 16 days and on 25.8.2020, the complainant was informed that the ATM Bank has confirmed that the transaction No. 010511783766 was successful. It is added to note that the complainant had earlier also made transaction no.6R516701:010511812957/11254900/ 000 which was unsuccessful but the amount against the said transaction has been wrongly debited in the account of the complainant. The complainant was disbursed only Rs.10,000/- against one transaction no. 010511783766 but the amount has been in his account twice for Rs.10,000/- debited each on 14.4.2020 which itself shows that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- has been wrongly debited. The complainant alleged that the complainant then again lodged another complaint in the shape of reminder to the previous complaint mentioned above, with the opposite party No.1 on 31.8.2020 vide Ticket No. 6556407677 which has not been replied/satisfied rather the same has been ignored by the opposite party No.1 knowingly and intentionally without obtaining any cash withdrawl detail of dated.14.4.2020 from opposite party No.2 and has been closed by the opposite parties on 2.9.2020 with the remarks "Time limit for raising claim with other bank is over". The complainant had already lodged the claim/ complaint with the opposite party No.1 within time and only against the transaction no. 010511783766 which remained unsuccessful but amount of the same was debited in from the account of the complainant but the opposite parties disposed of the said complainant with a false and vague reply by taking the shelter of another transaction of the same day which was successful for which no claim was ever made by the complainant with the opposite party No.l. As such the complainant cannot be said to be at fault and the opposite parties cannot be allowed to allege that the claim was out of time limit. This act of the opposite party No.1 is to deprive the comflainant of his lawful claim. It is alleged that the complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to admit the lawful claim of the complainant and to credit the amount of 10,000/- in the account of the complainant but to no effect. The complainant then filed a complaint in this regard before Chairman, SBI, Mlimbai and also before Chief Manager of the opposite party No.1 on 18.9.2020 but the said complaint too was disposed of with the same vague reply that the time is over. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to credit a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant with immidiate effect and to pay Rs.25,000 as compensation jointly and severally on account of mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the above noted complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint and the concerned facts in complaint primarily relates to opposite party No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank and it has nothing to do with opposite party No.1 i.e. State Bank of India. The complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, admissions, omissions, acquiescence and waiver and the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer and on this score also. That intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case which requires elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence and the witnesses are required to be cross examined which is not possible through the summary procedure enacted with complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act and on this score also, this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the petition complaint. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant by grossly twisting the facts as per his own convenience and the same is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the opposite party No.1 has pleaded that it is admitted that the complainant lodged complaint with the replying party on 5/8/2020 and on receiving of the said complaint replying party acted immediately and lodged the complaint of the complainant with the opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that the opposite party No.2 replied that the said transaction with respect to which the complaint was lodged was successful and further burden of proving the same is upon the opposite party No.2 as the ATM machine on which transaction was made belongs to opposite party No.2. The complaint with regard to lodging and closing the said complaint is matter of record however the replying party has always acted promptly and immediately took the matter with opposite party No.2. That Replying party has always cooperated with the complainant and took up the matter with the opposite party No.2 by raising chargeback on receipt of complaint form complainant. The complaint is denied and it is further submitted that the said transaction pertains to date 14/04/2020 and the complainant raised the issue with the opposite party No.1 on 05/08/2020 i.e. after almost four months and the time limit to raise any claim with other bank is 60 days hence the issue raised by the complainant was time barred. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections by way of Affidavit that the complainant has concealed Material facts and documents from this Hon'ble Commission, therefore, the complaint is not entitled to any relief. The true facts are that on the complaint of the complainant regarding failure transaction, the answering opposite party enquired the matter, and on enquiry, it came to the notice of the opposite party that in-fact, the complainant himself made two attempts to withdraw the money of Rs.10,000/- each and firstly he attempted to withdraw the money of Rs.10,000/- vide ID No. 010511783766 11.24.03 AM and thereafter, he again withdrawn the money of Rs.10,000/- through the same very machine vide ID No. 010311812957 at 11:25:49 AM and both the transactions were successful and money/payment against both the attempts were disbursed. The complainant has filed the present complaint with some ulterior motive. That there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. On merits, opposite party No.2 has reiterated its version as taken in the legal objection as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. To support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 23.2.2021 (Ex. C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-17). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Yogesh Kumar dated 2.9.2021 (Ex. OP-1/1) and documents (Ex.OP-1/2 & Ex.OP-1/3). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Madhu Bansal dated 26.8.2021 (Ex. OP-2/1) and documents (Ex.OP-2/2 & Ex.OP-2/3). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. The case of the complainant is that complainant is holding ATM card issued by opposite party No.1 for withdrawal of the amount, in case of need even after the bank hours. On 14.4.2020, he operated his ATM card in the ATM machine of Oriental Bank of Commerce, now merged with Punjab National Bank, Kanhai Branch, Gurugram for withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/- out of need of money vide transaction No.6R516701:010511812957/11254900/000 but the ATM did not disburse the amount and transaction was unsuccessful. The complainant made another transaction from his ATM card after a few minutes from the another ATM machine in the same cabin on the same day for withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/- vide transaction No.010511783766 that was successful and amount of Rs.10,000/- was disbursed to the complainant. Thereafter after coming back from Gurugram to Bathinda after lockdown, in the month of August 2020, the complainant visited the branch of opposite party No.1 for updating his bank passbook and came to know that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from his account twice on 14.4.2020, although he was delivered cash of Rs.10,000/- only during the second transaction as the first transaction had failed. As per Opposite party No.1, the transaction pertains to date 14.4.2020 and the complainant raised the issue with opposite party No.1 on 5.8.2020 i.e. after almost four months and time limit to raise any claim with other bank is 60 days, as such, the issue raised by him was time barred. Opposite party No.2 has pleaded that the complainant himself made two attempts to withdraw the money of Rs.10,000/- each and firstly, he attempted to withdraw the money of Rs.10,000/- vide ID No. 010511783766 11.24.03 AM and thereafter he again attempted to withdrawn the money of Rs.10,000/- from the same very machine vide ID No. 010311812957 at 11:25:49 AM, and Both the transactions were successful and money/payment against both the attempts were disbursed. To prove its version, opposite party No.2 has produced that ATM Logs (Ex.OP-2/2 and Ex.OP-2/5), which proves it is that both withdrawals were successful. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has cited case law of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case title Satyanarayan Pandey Vs. State Bank of India and others, 2017 (4) CPJ 199 where it has been held : “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) and 21 (b) Consumer complaint- ATM card – Transaction alleged to have been successful but money not delivered – Bank debited amount – Complaint filed before Dist. Forum alleging deficiency in service – Complaint allowed – Appeal against same allowed – Hence, present revision. Transaction have been found successful as per the electronics general file, whose copy was filed before the State Commission and the transactions are shown successful and money delivered – Complainant had not filed any proof showing that when he used to his ATM card, money was not transacted – On the contrary, there is ample proof to show that transactions were successful and Rs.20,000/- was delivered to person using ATM card – order passed by State Commission held proper – Hence, upheld. Keeping in view the case law cited by opposite party No.1 facts, circumstances and evidence on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with out any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 08-11-2023 - (R.L Mittal)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
