Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/446

Ramanpreest Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Kumar Adv.

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 446 of 24.07.2015

Date of Decision            :   02.03.2017 

 

Ramanpreet Singh s/o Shri Gurlal Singh, resident of B-33/1756, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Near Jalandhar Bypass Chowk, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.State Bank of India, Kesar  Ganj Branch, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

2.ICICI Bank Limited, Jalandhar Bypass Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          Sh.Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate

For OPs                          :          Sh.Alok Mohindra, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant, a holder of an ATM Card No.6069860018835191 issued by OP1, used the same twice on 4.1.2015 from the ATM of OP2. When complainant inserted the ATM card in the ATM machine, then it did not work due to technical fault. No amount was received by the complainant at that time. Had the complainant been aware that ATM machine is not working properly, then complainant would not have used the said ATM card in the said ATM machine. On the same day, again ATM card used in the same ATM machine and transaction was successful, due to which, the complainant received an amount of Rs.3000/-. Even balance confirmation slip from the ATM machine was received. After receipt of said slip, the complainant was shocked to know that amount of Rs.20,000/-, i.e. Rs.10,000/- each deducted from the account without payment of the said amount to him through ATM machine. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP for apprising the true facts. Request for refund of Rs.20,000/- was submitted by the complainant, but despite visit for several times, grievance of the complainant is not redressed. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to reimburse the amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @18% per annum. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1, it is pleaded that the complainant has no cause of action; there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1; intricate question of law and facts are involved and as such, matter cannot be decided by this Forum. It is claimed that though no offence committed by OP1, but despite that he has been termed as accused which amounts to defamation. Complainant never used the ATM of OP1, but he used the ATM of OP2 and as such, OP1 has no way out except to show the debit entries in the account books of the complainant. OP1 has not provided any services to the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant holds saving bank account with OP1 and even holds an ATM Card. As per record of OP1, the complainant withdrew Rs.10,000/- each on two occasions on 4.1.2015 from the ATM of OP2. OP2 conveyed the disbursal of said amount and consequently, entries in the account of the complainant were reflected. It is claimed that dispute, if any, is between the complainant and OP2. As per records of OP1, a debit entry of Rs.3000/- was incorporated in the account of the complainant due to withdrawal of that amount by use of ATM by him. Complainant never approached OP1 on 4.1.2015. OP1 do not know as to what transpired between the complainant and OP2, in case, complainant approached OP2. Complainant has no right to file the complaint against OP1. Each and every other allegation of the complaint denied.

3.                In separate written statement filed by OP2, it is claimed that the complainant guilty of suppression of material facts. In fact, the ATM of OP2 was used on three occasions. The first transaction started at 15:28:54 hours, but the same was not completed due to reason best known to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made second transaction at 15:29:39 hours and the same remained successful by way of disbursal of cash amount of Rs.10,000/-. The third transaction was started by the complainant at 15:30:59 hours and the same also remained successful by disbursal of Rs.10,000/-. As the amount has been successfully withdrawan by the complainant and as such, complaint alleged to be false and frivolous. As per records, bank had received a charge back from the complainant’s banker i.e. Op1 for transaction Nos.4707 and 4708 for Rs.10,000/- each on 9.1.2015. On verification of records by OP2, it was found that the said transactions were successful and the amount was paid. On rechecking of the records of OP2, it again found the transaction successful. No excess cash was reported on verification. Complaint alleged to be filed with malafide intention for extorting money. Intricate question of law and facts alleged to be involved and as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction, particularly when complainant has no cause of action. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that the EJ Roll contained various other transactions effected through ATM machine on 4.1.2015 which clearly shows the success of the transactions reflected as if there was no defect in the ATM. Had there been any defect in the ATM machine, then more complaints would have been received by OP2, but no other complaint received at all. Op2 also issued no excess      certificate showing the amount duly tallied. If the complainant was in need of Rs.20,000/- and his transactions were unsuccessful, then how he could opt for transaction for withdrawal of Rs.3000/- also from another ATM. So, it is claimed    that complainant is putting up false story.

4.                Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1/A of Sh. Om Parkash, Branch Manager of OP1, ExR2/A of Sh.Rajnish Singh, Officer of ICICI Bank Limited along with documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/5 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                 Counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that two transactions for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- each from ATM of OP2 remained unsuccessful, but despite that entry qua withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/- each incorporated in the passbook Ex.C4 against date 4.1.2015. As that amount was not disbursed and that is why the complaint filed after serving legal notice dated 30.4.2015 Ex.C5 through postal receipts Ex.C6 and Ex.C7. Except the affidavit Ex.CA of complainant, there is no other record to prove that transactions in question remained unsuccessful. Rather, details of the transactions conducted by the complainant through ATM of OP2 Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 shows that cash amount of Rs.10,000/- presented to the complainant in respect of the started transaction at 15:29:39 hours and 15:31:12 hours. Ex.C1     shows that cash amount of Rs.10,000/- was taken at 15:30:24 hours, but Ex.C2    shows as if cash amount of Rs.10,000/- taken at 15:31:37 hours. So, these ATM transaction details shows as if amount of Rs.20,000/- was disbursed. Corresponding entries of these ATM transactions even produced on record as Ex.R2/1 by Ops. On complaint of complainant, switch report was obtained and copy of the same produced on record as Ex.R2/2, perusal of same reveals that amount of Rs.10,000/- each were disbursed against the transaction entry Nos.4707 and 4708 each. Further, Inter Bank Reconciliation report Ex.R2/4 also produced to show the disbursal of these amounts of Rs.10,000/- each. Verification of cash in ATM was got conducted and certificate Ex.R2/5 issued by OP2 for showing that there was no excess cash report in ATM S1CW5737 dated 4.1.2015. So, all this documentary evidence produced by the Ops establishes that due process for verification of the disbursal of the disputed amount conducted by OP1 and it was found as if the amounts of Rs.10,000/- each were disbursed to the complainant on 4.1.2015, due to which, debit entries of these amount duly incorporated in the passbook Ex.C4. As due verification of the disbursal got conducted by OP1 and as such, no deficiency in service on the part of OP1 is there.

8.                Complainant holds ATM card issued by OP1 as per para no.2 of the complaint and as such, certainly he is not a consumer of OP2, due to which, there is no escape from the conclusion that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP2. When such privity of contract between the complainant and OP2 is not there, then certainly OP2 cannot be held liable for any deficiency. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi through orders dated 11.2.2016 passed in Revision Petition No.307 of 2016 in case titled as Chenaram vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and another as well as case titled as Global vacations Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Amarendra Selvan and others-2012(2)CLT-611(N.C.). So, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for Ops has force that the complaint against OP2 is not maintainable, even if the complainant may have used the ATM machine of OP2 because privity of contract between the complainant and OP2 is not established.

9.                As per law laid down in case Rajeshwar Singh vs. State Bank and others-2008(3)CPJ-21(Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh), in case, the withdrawal of amount indicated in the bank record by way of production thereof, then amount has to held either withdrawn by the complainant or someone else by misusing the ATM card. In case, material not produced on record to establish that amount not withdrawn from the account, then deficiency in service not established. Same is the position in the case before us because here not only no excess certificate Ex.R2/5, but even the interbank reconciliation record Ex.R2/4 etc.  as  discussed  above has been produced. So much so the cash tally report Ex.R2/3 even has been produced and as such, in view of all this, it is obvious that the complainant is unable to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Ops or any of them.

10.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

         

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

                                                Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                              Dated:02.03.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.