DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  668

                                                Instituted on:    18.11.2016

                                                Decided on:       30.05.2017

Malkit Singh son of Pritam Singh R/O VPO Garachon, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     State Bank of Patiala, Branch Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     State Bank of Patiala, Head Branch Office, Barra Chowk, Sangrur through its Manager.

3.     State Bank of Patiala, Head Office The Mall, Patiala through its G.M.

4.     Punjab National Bank, Branch Court Road, Situated at Gaushala Road, Sangrur, through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1 to3:   Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv.

For Opp. Party No.4 :       Shri Parmod Saxena, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Malkit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs number 1 to 3 by opening a saving bank account bearing number 55027292096 with OP number 1 and also got issued ATM card bearing number 6038455003300065800.  The case of the complainant is that on 16.1.2016, he went to Punjab National Bank ATM at Sangrur to withdraw the cash and as such he used the ATM card for withdrawing Rs.10,000/-, however transaction could not be processed and no cash was released and he again tried to withdraw the cash amounting to Rs.10,000/-, however, again the transaction could not be processed and no cash was released by the ATM machine in question.  Thereafter the complainant went to nearby Federal Bank ATM and withdrew Rs.20,000/-. However, the complainant received two messages to show withdrawal of the amount of Rs.10,000/- twice from PNB ATM, whereas no amount was disbursed by the ATM of PNB.  Thereafter on the next day, the complainant visited OP number 2 and told about the wrong deduction of Rs.20,000/-, whereas no cash was actually released, but all in vain. However, the OP number 2 told that the amount would be reimbursed by reverse entry, but nothing happened like this.  Thereafter the complainant visited the OPs so many times to get the matter sorted out, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund him an amount of Rs.20,000/- in the account of the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum from 16.1.2016 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by Ops number 1 to 3, it is admitted that the complainant has a saving bank account in question. However, it is stated that the complainant himself withdrew Rs.10,000/- on 16.1.2016 at 15:47 hours from Punjab National Bank, Branch Court Road, Sangrur, situated at Gaushala Road, Sangrur through ATM card in question  against transaction number 7670 as is clear from the electronic journal log. It is further stated that thereafter the complainant withdrew Rs.10,000/- again on 16.1.2016 at 15:50 hours from the above said branch of Punjab National Bank through transaction number 7671 and as such it is stated that the amount of Rs.20,000/- has rightly been debited to the account of the complainant.   It has been denied that the transaction could not be processed and cash was not released as alleged by the complainant.  It has been further stated that the ATM machine was working properly and the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs. 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 4, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant used the ATM machine of the OP and the amount of Rs.20,000/- has been rightly debited to the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of complaint detail, Ex.C-3 copy of ATM card, Ex.C-4 copy of passbook  and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 to 3 has produced Ex.OP1to3/1 to Ex.OP1to3/6 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  dismissal, for these reasons.

6.             Admittedly, the complainant is having a saving bank account in question with the OP number 1 for which the OP number 1 issued the ATM card to him.  The specific grievance of the complainant is that when he visited the ATM machine of OP number 4 i.e. Punjab National Bank, Gaushala Road Sangrur on 16.1.2016 and tried to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- twice, but no amount was disbursed rather the amount of Rs.10,000/- each was debited twice to the account of the complainant and that the message was received that the account has been debited.  On the other hand, the stand of OP number 4 is that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited twice to the account of the complainant as the amount was withdrawn by the complainant as per the transaction number 7670 and 7671 as is clear from the Electronic Journal Log. Ex.OP 1 to3/4  is a copy of document which shows that the amount of Rs.10,000/- each was withdrawn on 16.1.2016 at 15:47 and 15:50 hours against the card in question of the complainant.  Further to support this contention, the OPs number 1 to 3 has also produced on record the affidavit of Smt. Ritu Sood, Manager.  The Op number 4 has also produced affidavit of Deepak Manglik to state that the complainant has filed a false and fabricated complaint only to take benefit of his own wrong. The complaint is said to be false and wrong.  We have also perused the copy of transaction inquiry report, which clearly reveals that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited twice to the account of the complainant on 16.1.2016 against ATM card number 6038455003300065800, meaning thereby the complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.10,000/- twice total Rs.20,000/- on 16.1.2016 and the transaction was successful. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has even not produced on record the transaction slip which generates at the time of any such transaction showing that the amount has been paid or not. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce both such transaction slips, more so when it is not the case of the complainant that no such transaction slips were issued to the complainant.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to produce cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the amount debited to the account of the complainant was not actually disbursed to the complainant on 16.1.2016.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that there is no case made out against the OPs of any deficiency in service.

7.             Further learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that he had demanded CCTV footage but the same has not been produced by the OPs.  The OP number 4 has stated that CCTV footage is not necessary because there is no dispute regarding identity of the person.  The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon State Bank of India versus Sansar Chand Kapoor and another III 2015 CPJ 135 (NC) and found that in that case the complainant was claiming that he had not made any use of the ATM, but in the present case the ATM of the complainant is that he himself used the ATM. So, it is not disputed in the instant case, who had withdrawn the amount. It is well known fact that CCTV camera only captures the face of the person using the ATM to identify him and is not focused on the key board or on the cash dispending window. It is not the case of the complainant that he did not use the ATM.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        May 30, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member