DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 172 of 26.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 1.11.2007 <br /> <br /> Gurvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, VPO Mehma Sarja, District Bathinda-151201.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> State Bank of Patiala, Branch Mehma Sarja, VPO Mehma Sarja, District Bathinda-151201.<br /> ...... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Ms. Pushwinder Kaur Randhawa, Advocate <br /> For the opposite party : Sh. Ram Niwas Jain, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> HIRA LAL KUMAR, MEMBER:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay him compensation of Rs.99,500/- on account of loss in business caused due to non-issuance of the ATM Card.<br /> 2. The facts in brief are that complainant was operating Saving Bank Account in State Bank of Patiala, Branch Mehma Sarja. He was also having ATM card for the last so many years. This card was damaged/stolen and he requested the opposite party to issue him new ATM card as per law. Again the said ATM card was misplaced in Chandigarh during his visit to that place in connection with his business purpose on 12.11.2006. On return from Chandigarh, he wrote to opposite party to issue him new ATM card as per rules and regulations of the opposite party, but the opposite party did not issue the ATM card despite several personal visits and even the opposite party uttered words “go and do your work it is not in our rules to issue ATM card who get it stolen or damaged”. Since then, he has been facing loss to his business due to non issuance of ATM card by the opposite party inspite of his personal visits.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply taking legal objection that complainant is not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, opposite party has stated that ATM card was issued to the complainant on 22.6.2006 in response to his application dated 20.5.2006. No proof regarding the loss/damage to the ATM card in Chandigarh has been placed on record. Further, opposite party stated that no written application was given to it for issuance of new ATM card. It is only once the complainant visited the opposite party and made request regarding the issuance of ATM card again and after that he never visited the opposite party for this purpose. Thus, the complaint may be dismissed.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurvinder Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.4), affidavits (Ex.C.3) of Sh. Surjit Singh, copies of applications dated 15.11.2006 & 25.8.2007 (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.10), photocopy of Visiting Card of Dr. Tiwari (Ex.C.5), photocopy of Registration Card (Ex.C.6), photocopy of prescription slip (Ex.C.7), photocopy of Form C (Ex.C.8), photocopy of Form A (Ex.C.9) & photocopy of D.D.R dated 26.8.2007 (Ex.C.11).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite party, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Basant Kumar, its Manager, photocopy of application dated 25.8.2007 (Ex.R.2), photocopy of one page of register (Ex.R.3), photocopy of D.D.R dated 26.8.2007 (Ex.R.4) and photocopy of statement of account (Ex.R.5).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the opposite party.<br /> 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the grounds taken up in the complaint cited above. It was urged that the first ATM card was applied for on 20.5.2006 and the same was issued by the opposite party on 22.6.2006. As regards the written application of the complainant dated 15.11.2006 to the opposite party for the issuance of new ATM card, the same has not been issued so far. Lot of personal requests were made to the opposite party for the issuance of new ATM card, but the opposite party did not take any action in this regard. This has caused loss to his business for which he has claimed Rs. 99,500/-. Without ATM, he was unable to make transactions with regard to his saving account for business purposes. Non issuance of new ATM card is a clearcut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for which complainant is entitled to compensation due to mental tension and agony.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for opposite party stated that the application dated 15.11.2006 of the complainant is Ex.C.2 and the same has not been received in the office of the opposite party. No postal receipt or receipt issued by the opposite party has been placed on record. As per Ex.R.2, an application has been written by the complainant to the opposite party to issue new ATM card. Opposite party has issued pin code of the ATM on 14.9.2007 as is evident from Ex.R.2. No date of loss of ATM has been indicated. DDR regarding the ATM is dated 26.8.2007 which is Ex.R.4. It has been urged that efforts were taken by the opposite party as and when complainant approached opposite party and the minimum period has been spent regarding the issuance of ATM card time and again. Thus, deficiency in service cannot be attributed towards the opposite party. Complaint may be dismissed.<br /> 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. From the record, it is apparent that complainant made request dated 25.8.2007 to the opposite party for the issuance of duplicate ATM card. He also lodged DDR on 26.8.2007 and got the pin of the ATM on 14.9.2007 and has signed the entry in the relevant register of the bank in token of having received the pin code from the opposite party. From the record, it appears that the request dated 25.8.2007 is in the shape of request and not a reminder as urged by the complainant. As alleged by the complainant, there was no pin code in the envelope which was received on 14.9.2007. Opposite party again issued pin code and the signatures of the complainant are available in the relevant register, the extract thereof is Ex.R.3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no deficiency can be attributed to the opposite party as opposite party has been attending to the requests of the complainant time and again with regard to the issuance of duplicate ATM card. The delay which the complainant alleges is not an intentional one, but this is the time period which is taken for processing with regard to the issuance of ATM card by the opposite party. As regards the business loss of the complainant is concerned, there is nothing on record about the details of the business and also the details of the loss which is alleged to have occurred during the period of non issuance of duplicate ATM card by the opposite party. Further more, as per statement of account produced by the opposite party, the transaction of the complainant is about Rs. 5,000/- and at no time, it has exceeded to Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, the demand of damage in the shape of compensation to the tune of Rs. 99,500/- is baseless and exaggerated. No income tax return has been placed on file by the complainant in support of his income from the business etc.<br /> 10. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, present complaint is devoid of force and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> 01.11.2007 Member<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />