Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that complainants have bank accounts in State Bank of India, branch Main Bazar, Moga. The complainants are one of the oldest and active customers of the Opposite Party bank. The complainants used to deposit and withdraw the amount from ATM/Deposit machine from the very beginning when it was installed in the bank. On 26.04.2021 at about 10.25 a.m. the complainant Prince Singla went to the bank to deposit Rs.66000/- in Saving A/c No.31372435755 of his mother Smt.Manju Singla. Prince Singla had 114 notes of Rs.500/- and 90 notes of Rs.100/-. He inserted all the notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- into the ATM/Deposit Machine, but the machine shown some of the notes struck up in the machine. So he took back all the notes from the machine and then he again inserted all the 114 notes of Rs.500/- into the ATM/deposit machine and the machine counted the notes and shown him the total amount of Rs.51000/- instead of Rs.57000/-. Then the complainant Prince Singla inserted the notes of Rs.100/- into the said machine 3 to 4 times but every time some notes of Rs.100/- struck up in the machine, and after trying for 3 to 4 times the machine accepted total 61 notes of Rs.100/- and the machine did not accept 29 notes of Rs.100/-. The following chart will be helpful to understand the facts:-
a) AMOUNT DEPOSITED INTO ATM MACHINE
114 notes of Rs.500/- = Rs.57000/-
90 notes of Rs.100/- = Rs. 9000/-
Total Rs.66000
b) AMOUNT ACCEPTED BY ATM MACHINE
114 notes of Rs.500/- = Rs.57000/-
61 notes of Rs.100/- = Rs. 6100/-
Total Rs.63100/-
c) AMOUNT SHOWN BY ATM MACHINE
102 notes of Rs.500/- = Rs.51000
62 notes of Rs.100/- = Rs. 6200
Total Rs.57200/-
Difference between amount accepted by the machine and amount shown by the machine Rs.5900/-. In this way, ATM machine accepted from the complainant Prince Singla total 114 notes of Rs.500/- (i.e. total Rs.57000/-) and 61 notes of Rs.100/- (i.e. total Rs.6100/-) i.e. total Rs.63100/-, but the said ATM/deposit machine shown that he has deposited only Rs.57200/- (i.e. 102 notes of Rs.500/- and 62 notes of Rs.100/-). When the complainant Prince Singla found that the machine has less shown 12 notes of Rs.500/- and the machine excess shown 1 note of Rs.100/-, then he immediately met with the Branch Manager of the S.B.I. Main Branch, Moga namely Sh.Bhagwan Singh Makkar and told him the entire episode and he referred the complainant to Mrs.Aashima Sachdeva as she deals with issues of ATM/Deposit machine transactions. The complainant Prince Singla told her all the facts and she asked Prince Singla to fill a complaint form. Prince Singla filled the said form at the spot and handed over the same to Mrs.Aashima Sachdeva, and then she asked Prince Singla to come after four days. Prince Singla requested Mrs.Aashima to immediately open the ATM/deposit machine and to check whether his 12 notes of Rs.500/- stuck in the ATM/deposit machine or not, but Mrs.Aashima refused to do so and she asked to come after 4 days and she assured Prince Singla that his matter will be solved positively. On 30.04.2021 Prince Singla again visited State Bank of India, Main Bazar, Moga, and inquired the matter from Mrs.Aashima Sachdeva, then she told him that she has checked the total amount and there is surplus of only Rs.500/- in the ATM/deposit machine. But she had no data to tell that the surplus amount of Rs.500/- belongs to which customer. This fact also shows that there is some fault in the ATM/deposit machine and in case the machine is showing 1 note of Rs.500/- in excess then the machine might have excess 12 notes of Rs.500/- i.e. Rs.6000/-. Mrs.Aashima Sachdeva and the bank employees have no data to tell anything regarding the one surplus note. This fact also supports version of the complainant Prince Singla that if staff of Opposite Party bank has 1 note in surplus then they also have 11 notes of Rs.500/- which were deposited by Prince Singla alongwith other 102 notes of Rs.500/-. When Prince Singla asked Mrs.Aashima Sachdeva regarding his other notes of Rs.500/- then she asked him to meet with the Manager. Before meeting with the Manager of the bank, Prince Singla called his 3 friends who are also advocates. Then all of them met with the Manager and requested him to do the needful so that his excess money Rs.5900/- be refunded to him which stuck into the ATM/deposit machine. But the Manager shown his inability to do anything and he told Prince Singla that he is unauthorized to refund any amount to any customer for any fault of ATM/deposit machine. The Manager also told Prince Singla that its authority is lying with his higher officers or with General Manager of the bank and in case his higher officers will direct him only then he can return Rs.5900/- to Prince Singla. The facts and circumstances mentioned above clearly show that the complainant Prince Singla had deposited total Rs.63100/- but due to fault in the ATM/deposit machine only Rs.57200/- have been credited to bank account of his mother Smt.Manju Singla. In this way Prince Singla and his mother have suffered a loss of Rs.5900/-. Thereafter the complainant Prince Singla moved complaints from his email id to the emails of respondent bank on 01.05.2021 and on 11.05.2021. The complainant Prince Singla also talked with executive on customer care number of the Opposite Party bank and the executive asked the complainant to fill ticket number ATM 52650354 and to send it at 567676 in order to check updates of his case and assured Prince Singla that his complaint will be solved positively within 10 days. So the complainant sent the said ticket number to 567676 on 18.5.2021 and on 19.5.2021. But inspite of all this, the respondent bank has neither refunded the sum of Rs.5900/- to the complainants nor sent any reply to the complaint/emails of the complainant. The complainants through their counsel also sent legal notice dated 24.05.2021 upon the Opposite Parties, but that to no effect. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
a) Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the sum of Rs.5900/- to complainants.
b) To pay an amount of Rs.One lac only.
c) To pay an amount of Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to complainants.
d) And any other relief which this Commission deem fit and proper be granted to complainants in the interest of justice and equity.
2 Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable. This Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complainants have got no locus-standi to file the present complaint. The complainants have concealed material facts from this Commission. Actual facts are that complainant No.2 Manju is holder of Saving A/c No.31372435755 and complainant No.1 Prince Singla is holder of Saving A/c No.30045226503 with the State Bank of India, Branch at Main Bazar, Moga i.e. Opposite Party No.2. On 26.04.2021 a sum of Rs.57,200/- was got deposited in account of Manju through ATM deposit machine. On the same day at 10:33:19 AM Rs.4400/- was got deposited in the account of complainant Prince Singla through ATM deposit machine. Opposite Parties have record of the videography of the CCTV Camera of dated: 26.04.2021 which clearly falsify the claim of complainants. The amount deposited by complainants through ATM machine has been duly recorded through the said ATM Machine specifying each and every number of currency notes. Thereafter, complainants have filed complaint through e-mail and which was replied by Opposite Parties. Hence Opposite Parties are not liable to refund the amount of Rs.5900/- to complainants. The card holder will be responsible for all types of transactions processed by the use of ATM cards, whether or not processed with his knowledge or authority, express or implied. The card holder will accept the bank's records of transaction as conclusive and binding for all purposes. The Bank's own record of transactions maintained through computer systems or otherwise shall be accepted as conclusive and binding for all purposes unless any discrepancy is pointed out by the card holder within stipulated period. The transaction record generated by an ATM or POS terminal/e-commerce will be binding on the Cardholder and it will be conclusive unless verified otherwise and corrected by the bank. The verified and corrected amount will be binding on the Cardholder. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Bank. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.
3. To prove his case, complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant no.1 Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10.
4. To rebut the evidence of complainant, Opposite Parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Branch Manager Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 to OPs13.
5. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the parties have mainly reiterated the same facts as mentioned in the complaint as well as written versions. The case of the complainant is that on 26.04.2021 at about 10.25 a.m. the complainant no.1 went to the bank to deposit Rs.66000/- in Saving A/c No.31372435755 of his mother Smt.Manju Singla. Complainant no.1 had 114 notes of Rs.500/- and 90 notes of Rs.100/-. He inserted all the notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- into the ATM/Deposit Machine, but the machine shown some of the notes struck up in the machine. The following chart will be helpful to understand the facts:-
a) AMOUNT DEPOSITED INTO ATM MACHINE
114 notes of Rs.500/- = Rs.57000/-
90 notes of Rs.100/- = Rs. 9000/-
Total Rs.66000
b) AMOUNT ACCEPTED BY ATM MACHINE
114 notes of Rs.500/- = Rs.57000/-
61 notes of Rs.100/- = Rs. 6100/-
Total Rs.63100/-
c) AMOUNT SHOWN BY ATM MACHINE
102 notes of Rs.500/- = Rs.51000
62 notes of Rs.100/- = Rs. 6200
Total Rs.57200/-
Difference between amount accepted by the machine and amount shown by the machine Rs.5900/-. Complainant immediately met with the Branch Manager of the S.B.I. Main Branch, Moga, who referred the complainant to Mrs.Aashima Sachdeva as she deals with issues of ATM/Deposit machine transactions. The complainant Prince Singla told her all the facts and she asked Prince Singla to come after four days. On 30.04.2021 Prince Singla again visited State Bank of India, Main Bazar, Moga, and inquired the matter from Mrs.Aashima Sachdeva, then she told him that she has checked the total amount and there is surplus of only Rs.500/- in the ATM/deposit machine. But she had no data to tell that the surplus amount of Rs.500/- belongs to which customer. This fact also shows that there is some fault in the ATM/deposit machine and in case the machine is showing 1 note of Rs.500/- in excess then the machine might have excess 12 notes of Rs.500/- i.e. Rs.6000/-. This fact also supports version of the complainant Prince Singla that if staff of Opposite Party bank has 1 note in surplus then they also have 11 notes of Rs.500/- which were deposited by Prince Singla alongwith other 102 notes of Rs.500/-. Then the complainant again met with the Manager and requested him to do the needful so that his excess money Rs.5900/- be refunded to him which stuck into the ATM/deposit machine. But to no effect. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has repelled the contention of ld. counsel for the complainant on the ground that on 26.04.2021 a sum of Rs.57,200/- was got deposited in account of Manju through ATM deposit machine. On the same day at 10:33:19 AM Rs.4400/- was got deposited in the account of complainant Prince Singla through ATM deposit machine. Opposite Parties have record of the videography of the CCTV Camera of dated: 26.04.2021 which clearly falsify the claim of complainants. The amount deposited by complainants through ATM machine has been duly recorded through the said ATM Machine specifying each and every number of currency notes. Thereafter, complainants have filed complaint through e-mail and which was replied by Opposite Parties. The card holder will be responsible for all types of transactions processed by the use of ATM cards, whether or not processed with his knowledge or authority, express or implied. The card holder will accept the bank's records of transaction as conclusive and binding for all purposes. The Bank's own record of transactions maintained through computer systems or otherwise shall be accepted as conclusive and binding for all purposes unless any discrepancy is pointed out by the card holder within stipulated period. The transaction record generated by an ATM or POS terminal/e-commerce will be binding on the Cardholder and it will be conclusive unless verified otherwise and corrected by the bank. The verified and corrected amount will be binding on the Cardholder.
6. We have perused the rival contentions of ld. counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the record. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that on 26.04.2021 a sum of Rs.57,200/- was got deposited in account of Manju through ATM deposit machine. On the same day at 10:33:19 AM Rs.4400/- was got deposited in the account of complainant Prince Singla through ATM deposit machine. To prove this fact, opposite parties placed on record statement of account of Prince i.e. complainant no.1 Ex.OPs2, vide which it is clear that on 26.04.2021 an amount of Rs.4400/- was deposited in his account and statement of account of Manju Singla Ex.OPs3, which shows that on 26.04.2021 an amount of Rs.57200/- was deposited in the account of Manju Singla i.e. complainant no.2, but this fact was not brought to the notice of this Commission by the complainant that he has deposited the amount of Rs.4400/- in his account on the same day when he deposited the amount in the account of his mother/complainant no.2. So, the contention of complainant cannot be believed that he deposited the amount of Rs.66000/- in the account of his mother/complainant no.2. However EJ Log placed on record by the opposite parties shows that total amount of Rs.57200/- was deposited in the account of Manju Singla i.e. complainant no.2.
7. In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and matter regarding fraud allegedly committed by the complainant regarding suppression of facts and since the complainant has failed to prove his case by filing any cogent and convincing evidence on the record, we are of the view that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. Not only this, the nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements. Further in case Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction.”
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. However, the complainant can get redressal of her grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other competent authority, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
