Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/607

Mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.607 of 08.10.2015

Date of Decision          :   06.12.2016

 

Mohan Singh s/o Gurdev Singh r/o village New Abadi Akalgarh, A D Halwara, Ludhiana. 

….. Complainant

Versus 

1.State Bank of Patiala, Air Force Station, Halwara District Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

2.State Bank of India, Raikot, District Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant                     :       Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For Op1                         :       Sh.Alok Mohindra, Advocate

For OP2                         :       Sh.B.S.Jawahar, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant claims to be having pension account No.55062250756 with OP1. Even complainant is having ATM Card bearing ID No.510C010748002 with him against this account. On 2.7.2015, complainant along with his son Ranjodh Singh Grewal visited ATM owned by OP2 for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. Despite operation of the machine at about 15:33 hours of 2.7.2015, the machine did    not disburse the said amount. So, complainant was deprived of amount of Rs.10,000/-. However, complainant received slip bearing TXN number 6921 showing as if transaction remained successful. OP1 debited the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant and that is why, complainant submitted written complaint on 3.7.2015 with OP1. There was no complaint register available with the security guard. Complainant claims that he presumed as if the machine became defective and that is why he failed to operate accordingly. Thereafter, various written and online complaints were lodged with OP, but to no effect. OP1 sent letter dated 3.8.2015 to OP2 for disclosing as if as per the complaint of the complainant, the amount has not been disbursed to him and as such, video should be shown for the satisfaction of the complainant. In reply, OP2 disclosed through letter as if the engineer concerned has been contacted. Thereafter, no reply qua initiating the action received from OP2. So, by pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to credit Rs.10,000/- to his account along with interest @12% p.a. till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation expenses also claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by Op1, it is pleaded interalia as if there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op1; complainant has no cause of action and in view of intricate question of law and facts involved, elaborate evidence will be required, due to which, Civil Court alone has jurisdiction. Complainant used the ATM of OP2 as per his own admission and amount was shown to be withdrawn from his account because of debiting of amount by OP2 from OP1, so OP1 has no other way out except to show the debit entries in account books of the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant holding pension account as well as ATM Card and visited ATM owned by OP2 for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 2.7.2015. However, further allegation qua non disbursal of the amount of Rs.10,000/- denied vehemently. Rather, as per allegation of OP1, transaction was duly performed on 2.7.2015 from the ATM machine of OP2, as a result of which, amount of Rs.10,000/- was duly debited in the account of the complainant. As per the information supplied by OP2 to OP1, the transaction was successful and that is why amount was transferred by OP1 to OP2. After receiving complaint from the complainant, OP1 took up the matter with OP2 through ATM Nodal Office. In response to the complaint, OP1 received reply from the ATM Nodal Office on 20.7.2015 to the effect that transaction was successful and as such, further      credit in the account of the complainant cannot be given. After receiving of this intimation, the complainant called upon OP1 to ask Op2 to provide recorded video footage. That request of the complainant was forwarded to OP1 for providing video footage for satisfaction of the complainant. OP2 through letter dated 4.8.2015 conveyed to OP1 that video footage cannot be provided due to technical reasons because hard disk of the ATM had gone faulty. OP1 further conveyed that hard disk replaced on 6.7.2015 and that is why, new software was uploaded in the machine as per the report of engineer concerned. It was on account of this that video footage could not be provided as per reply received from the OP2. OP1 took all steps for redressing the grievance of the complainant. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that due debit of the conducted transaction has been given in account of the complainant.

3.                In separate written reply filed by OP2, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2; complaint filed for abusing the process of law and complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing this complaint. It is claimed that ATM machine disbursed cash amount of Rs.10,000/- on operation by the complainant for withdrawal of the same. Besides, no excess amount was found lying in the ATM machine at the time of refilling of the same and as such, all the transactions conducted were found successful. Even ATM machine issued the slip to this effect to the complainant. Fact regarding holding of ATM Card by the complainant admitted and even fact qua operation of ATM machine on 2.7.2015 is admitted. Rather, it is claimed that ATM machine disbursed the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and that is why, slip bearing TXN number 6921 showing the transaction as successful was issued by the ATM machine. In view of this, OP1 duly debited the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant. Fact qua lodging of complaint dated 3.7.2015 by the complainant even admitted, but it is claimed that after verification of the fact of the complaint as well as the record pertaining to ATM machine, it was found that the complainant has received the disbursed amount of Rs.10,000/-. Record of revise ATM Reconciliation Report, Log report of ATM, ATM Switch report and No Excess Cash Certificate was scrutinized for finding the disbursal of amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Besides, number of other ATM Card holders withdrew the amount from that machine is a fact borne from the Log report. If transactions of other card holders remained successful, then issue of receipt by the ATM machine itself reflects that transaction carried out by the complainant remained successful. After receipt of complaint of the complainant, an enquiry was got conducted for finding that nothing was wrong on the end of ATM machine of OP2 and intimation in that respect was given to the complainant. Moreover, complaint filed by the complainant with Ombudsman was disposed of after finding no fault on the part of ATM machine. Letter dated 3.8.2015 is correct, being based on actual and factual position of transaction. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Arun Mahajan, Branch Manager of OP1 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and then closed the evidence.

6.                 Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R2 of Sh.Mahesh Aggarwal, Branch Manager of OP2 along with documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/4 and then closed the evidence.

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

8.                 Undisputedly, the complainant operated his ATM Card in question from machine of OP2 for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter, the said ATM machine issued receipt Ex.C7=Ex.R6 on 2.7.2015 at 15:33 hours itself. After going through this receipt Ex.C7=Ex.R6, it is made out as if amount of Rs.10,000/- stood withdrawn. Available balance in account of the complainant even mentioned in receipt Ex.C7=Ex.R6. So, it is obvious that the complainant got knowledge of disbursal of the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 2.7.2015 itself. Bone of contention remains as to whether actually amount in question disbursed to the complainant or not?

9.                It is vehemently contended by Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate representing complainant that complaint Ex.C1 was lodged with OP1 qua non disbursal of the amount in question. Factum qua lodging of this complaint is not denied by the Ops. Complainant demanded CCTV Video Footage by claiming that he has not received the amount of Rs.10,000/-. On this request Ex.C2 by the complainant to OP1 and subsequent of issue of reminder Ex.C3, letter Ex.C4 dated 3.8.2015 was issued by OP1 to OP2 for calling upon him to show the video qua the successful transaction in question for the satisfaction of the complainant. Complaints with Ombudsman/Management of Ops were submitted as revealed by contents of Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 each. Ex.C8 is the details of phone calls. It is contended by Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate representing complainant that despite demand of CCTV video footage, the same not deliberately shown to the complainant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops. That CCTV video footage was to be provided by OP2 and not by OP1 and as such, submission advanced by counsel for OP1 has force that in view of forwarding of the request for CCTV video footage, OP1 did whatever was required. That fact is borne not only from the above referred documents, but even from the contents of Ex.R2 to Ex.R5. So, certainly, whatever was required on the part of OP1 for redressal of grievance of the complainant, the same was done by OP1. In view of this, deficiency in service on the part of OP1 was not there at all because fault in ATM machine alleged to be of OP2 and not of OP1. Besides, withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/- on basis of customer advice Ex.C7=Ex.R6 reflected therein and as such, due to success of the undertaken transaction, OP2 was to debit the amount of Rs.10,000/- in account of OP1, who was to recover the same from the account of the complainant. So, certainly on account of success of the transaction noted down on Ex.C7=Ex.R6, OP1 did the right thing in debiting the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant. So, deficiency in service on the part of OP1 as such certainly is not there.

10.              Sh.B.S.Jawahar, Advocate representing OP2 vehemently contends that an enquiry was conducted on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant and thereafter, it was found as if amount in question was disbursed to the complainant. Besides, no excess amount was found lying in ATM machine in question at the time of further loading cash and as such, it is contended that in view of receipt Ex.R6=Ex.C7=Ex.R2/2 issued immediately after the transaction, fault does not remain on the part of OP2. It is further contended that CCTV Video Footage could not be provided because of fault in the hard disk, same stood replaced and the new software has been uploaded on 6.7.2015 and as such, deficiency in service on the part of OP2 is not there at all. Certainly, contents of Ex.R2/4 establishes that after verification of the ATM replenishment-cum-cash verification records, it was found that no excess amount of cash was found in the ATM machine in question on 2.7.2015 because transaction in question bearing NO.6921 of 2.7.2015 was successful transaction. Ex.R2/3, the cash loading transaction chart even produced to show that no difference between admin and cash disburse through ATM    was found on 2.7.2015. Contents of Ex.R2/3 establishes that total cash disbursed was to the tune of Rs.8,39,700/- and the transactions for this amount on ATM machine in question remained successful. So, this evidence produced on record by OP2 also establishes that on complaint of the complainant, due enquiry was conducted and it was found that transaction in question was successful. OP2 could have checked its records like certificate Ex.R2/3 for finding, if there was fault in disbursal of the amount or not. That was done and as such, fault on the part of OP2 even is not there. Affidavit Ex.R2 of Sh.Mahesh Aggarwal, Branch Manager of OP2 further establishes that after verification of the facts of complaint and going through the record of revise ATM Reconciliation Report, Log report of the ATM, ATM Switch Report and No Excess Cash Certificate, it was found that machine operated by the complainant disbursed the amount of Rs.10,000/- to him. Revised ATM Reconciliation Report Ex.R2/1 along with Log Report Ex.R2/2,  ATM Switch Report Ex.R2/3 and no excess cash certificate Ex.R2/4 in this respect are placed on record and as such, Op2 after conduct of enquiry found the transaction in question as successful. Document Ex.R4 shows as if engineer was contacted by OP2 and after report of the engineer, it was found that due to some technical reasons, hard disk of the ATM became faulty and that is why, the same was replaced on 6.7.2015. Letter Ex.C5=Ex.R5 placed on record reflects that position. So, non-providing of CCTV footage was due to fault in the hard disk and as such, deficiency in service on the part of OP2 is not there on account of non providing of CCTV footage. Slip to customer Ex.C7=Ex.R6 is always remitted by the ATM machine concerned after completion of the ATM transaction only. In case, transaction remains unsuccessful, then receipt like Ex.C7=Ex.R6 will disclose about the transaction remaining unsuccessful. However, receipt Ex.C7=Ex.R6 discloses about the success of the conducted transaction and as such, thorough investigation by agency dealing with criminal cases alone can find the truth. As and when, intricate question of law and facts are involved, then matters need be thoroughly investigated by agency dealing with criminal cases and as such, complainant has remedy available with him to approach the police station concerned. Rather, in view of the pleaded facts at the most, it is made out as if fraud is committed with the complainant by someone else than that of his bankers and as such, complainant should approach the police officials of concerned police station. As per law laid down in numerous cases, proceedings before the Consumer Fora are summary in nature, but as and when complex question of law and facts including commission of fraud requires to be probed, then complaint before Consumer Fora is not maintainable. This in fact is the law laid down in cases P.N.Khanna vs. Bank of India-II(2015)CPJ-54(N.C.); Bright Transport Company vs. Sangli Sehkari Bank-II(2012)CPJ-151(N.C.); Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Munni Mahesh Patel-IV(2006)SLT-436=IV(2004)CPJ-1(S.C.); Reliance Industries Limited vs. United India Insurance Company-I(1998)CPJ-13(N.C.); M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. vs. Union Commercial Bank-III(1992)CPJ-50(N.C.); Sangli Ram vs. General Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.-II(1994)CPJ-444=1994(I)CPR-434;Harbans and Company vs.State Bank of India-II(1994)CPJ-456=1994(I)CPR-381 and Jayanti Lal Keshav Lal Chouhan vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd.-1994(1)CPR-396. If ATM withdrawal found fraudulent, then Consumer Fora not to adjudicate the dispute in summary proceedings is also the ratio of case    Ranju                      Devi vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India-2015(4)CLT-131(JHK). So, in view of this legal position, this Fora cannot adjudicate in summary proceedings the factum of commission of fraud in ATM withdrawal by the complainant. Complainant therefore, should approach the appropriate authority for         redressal of his grievance.

11.              Therefore, 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.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                      (Vinod Bala)                                (G.K.Dhir)

                       Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:06.12.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.