Haryana

Ambala

CC/67/2014

RAMESHWAR DASS - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF PATIALA - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No.: 67 of 2014

             Date of Institution:    05.03.2014

              Date of Decision:      11.03.2016 

Rameshwar Dass son of Tej Pal, R/o Village Budiyon, Tehsil Barara & District

Ambala.

                                                                                                                                                                           ……Complainant.

                                                                                        Versus

1.       State Bank of Patiala, Barara Tehsil Barara & District Ambala.

2.       Punjab National Bank, Dusarka, Tehsil Barara & District Ambala.

                                                                             ……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Amit Sharma, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. R.L. Mundan, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.                  

ORDER.

                   Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’)  alleging therein that he is holding a Saving Bank Account No.55008910650 with a facility of ATM Card issued by OP No.1 Bank and said bank has entered into an understanding with OP No.2 Bank regarding ATM transactions for providing better services to its customers.  On 08.07.2013, complainant tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- through the ATM of OP No.2 i.e. PNB but  not even a single penny was dispensed from the ATM machine yet a sum of Rs.5776/- was debited in the account of complainant by OP No.1 Bank. Besides it, there are differences in the entries recorded in the saving bank pass book & Complaint Management System vide TXN No./ATM1157 & onwards. However, on the same day of the incident, complainant informed to the officials of both the OP Bank and requested them to correct it by crediting the debited sum of Rs.5776/- to the account of complainant. It has been further alleged by the complainant that he made several representations to the Ops but nothing needful has been done by the Ops which is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops whereby complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.10000/- besides mental tension & harassment etc. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been preferred by the complainant.   

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared  through counsel  and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint & suppression of material facts etc. On merits, it has been urged that on 08.07.2013, complainant used his ATM Card through the ATM machine of OP No.2 Bank at Barara and himself withdrawn the amount of Rs.10,000/- and due to managing videography in the ATM machine, complainant was found in counting the notes, so the complainant cannot deny in any manner.  As a matter of fact, the complainant has withdrawn the amount  from the ATM machine of OP No.2 and as such the answering OP has rightly debited the same in the account of complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

                   On the other hand, OP No.2 filed separate written statement raising preliminary objections that the complainant has neither cause of action nor any locus standi to file the present complaint since complainant is not a consumer of OP No.2 Bank and he was required to lodge his complaint with his bank i.e. OP No.1 and same was to be taken up by OP No.1 through Dispute Management System of NPCI under the circulars & instructions issued by Reserve Bank of India. On merits, it has been admitted that  complainant used their ATM Machine for withdrawal  a sum of Rs.10,000/- vide TXN No/ATM1157 but it has been specifically denied that  not even a single penny was dispensed by the ATM machine and that a sum of Rs.5776/- was debited in the account of the complainant rather  it has been contended that complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- having transaction successful and thus a sum of Rs.10,000/-  has been rightly debited to his account showing a balance  of Rs.5776/- by OP No.1 Bank in accordance with rules & circulars issued by RBI.  After receipt of complaint from complainant, matter was investigated from  the record maintained by GPS of concerned ATM and reconciliation statement kept in Head Office wherein transaction of Rs.10,000/- was found successful  for withdrawal of the said amount and meanwhile the complainant filed a complaint in the office of Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh where after hearing both the parties, they also found the transaction successful and the complaint made by the complainant was filed by the office of Ombudsman and thus OP No.2 Bank also prayed for dismissal of complaint with special costs.

3.                To prove his case, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to  C-6 and closed his evidence  whereas on the other hand,  counsel for Op No.1 tendered affidavit of Sumit Sharma Clerk as Annexure R-1/X alongwith document as Annexure R-1/1and closed the evidence on behalf of  Op No.1. The counsel for OP No.2 also tendered affidavit of Sh. J.K. Jain, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank as Annexure RA alongwith documents as Annexures R-2/1 to R-2/5 and closed their evidence.

4.                We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for the Ops and gone through the record very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant is that he used his ATM Card issued by OP No.1 Bank to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- from ATM machine of OP No.2 Bank on 08.07.2013 and no money was dispensed by ATM machine and thus the transaction as per complainant remained unsuccessful whereas as per Ops, the transaction was successful and as per video footage, complainant is counting the notes in the ATM machine room and has withdrawn Rs.10,000/-.

                   Complainant to prove his contention has placed on record  application dated 08.07.2013 (Annexure C-1) made to PNB-OP No.2 Bank, ATM transaction statement (Annexure C-2), Pass Book Account (Annexure C-3),  ATM transaction vide No.1157 on 08.07.2013 in Pass Book (Annexure C-4),  order of Banking  Ombudsman  (Annexure C-5) and copy of complaint dated 29.08.2013  made by complainant to Ombudsman ( Annexure C-6).

 5.               We have gone through the application of complainant made to OP No.2 Bank (Annexure C-1) wherein the complainant has submitted that due to hang of ATM machine of PNB Dosarka, amount of Rs.10,000/- was not dispensed by the machine whereas the same has been deducted from his account and thus requested for return of his money. Further the complainant has specifically mentioned in the said application that he gave two command of Rs.5000/- each but no money was supplied by ATM wherefrom  the version of complainant  is itself shaky and not believable as the complainant has nowhere mentioned in his complaint before the Forum that  he gave two commands of Rs.5000/- each rather he has stated that he issued  command to withdraw Rs.10,000/-. As such, it prima facie appears that the complainant is himself faulty and on wrong footing.  On the other hand, the Ops have placed on record documents as Annexures R2/1 & R2/2 which shows that transaction  of Rs.10,000/- remained successful. Besides it, the order of Banking Ombudsman (Annexure C-5) is very clear in the matter  wherein  it has been held that transaction on 08.07.2013 of PNB ATM remained successful as per documents/reports produced by the Bank.  In view of the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.  Accordingly the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. and the OPs No.1 to 3 are directed to comply with the following directions jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order:-

1. To replace the mobile set in question with new one and if the said Make is not available then another mobile set of the same price be given to the complainant or To pay the cost of the mobile phone set amounting to Rs.9700/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realisation.

 

2. To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment & mental agony etc. 

.

2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- for litigation charges.

 

                             Further the award in question/directions issued above shall be complied with by the OP within the stipulated period failing which the award shall attract interest @ 10 % per annum for the period of default. So the complaint is allowed in the above terms.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED:11.03.2016                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                               (A.K. SARDANA)

                                PRESIDENT             

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

           (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                             MEMBER