DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.232 of 9.6.2016

                                      Decided on:                   8.11.2019

Manpreet Singh son of Ajaib Singh, resident of House No.6, Street No.8, New Prem Nagar, Bhadson Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

The Manager, Customer Care, State Bank of Patiala, The Mall, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur,    Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal,        Member        

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Yuvraj Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Hemant Nanda, Advocate, counsel for OP.                  

 ORDER

                                     M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Manpreet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The Manager Customer Care, SBOP (hereinafter referred to as the OP).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the State Bank of Patiala (OP), having account No.55153795481 with it. On 5.11.2015, he deposited Rs.6000/- with Cash Deposit Machine but the cash was not credited in his account. On the same date about 6P.M. he met with the security guard of the bank who told that the machine is out of order from 4.11.2015. Complainant contacted the Manager Customer Care, SBOP, The Mall Patiala on 6.11.2015 and gave written representation but till date the OP has not deposited Rs.6000/- in his account.The complainant gave the reminder letter dated 4.12.2015 to the OP but to no response. On 4.3.2016 the complainant again written letter but OP has not given satisfactory reply. Then complainant moved application to Banking Lok Pal, RBI, Punjab Chandigarh. In reply to the application, it was told that the CDM was out of order from 4.11.2015 to 6.11.2015 and was not accepting cash.
3. It is alleged that instead of giving the amount, the OP is avoiding the liability by rejecting the claim by making vague allegations. Complainant demanded CCTV footage from the OP. But he was not given the CCTV footage. He was given footage from the side camera, which clearly shows that complainant is making transaction. Thereafter, the complainant also sent legal notice through his counsel on 19.5.2016 but OP has given vague reply.
4. It is also pleaded that this act of the OP has caused serious mental tension, torture and agony to the complainant. For these sufferings he has claimed Rs.80,000/- as compensation in addition to the refund of the amount of Rs.6000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum. Hence this complaint.
5. Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written reply. In reply the OP raised preliminary objections that the complaint is false, frivolous, baseless and devoid of any merit; it is not maintainable; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed true and material facts. He wants to mislead the Forum by pleading wrong facts. He has no cause of action to file the complaint. The complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and to fetch easy money and also to harass and humiliate the OP.
6. On merits, it is stated to be matter of record that the complainant is having account with the OP. It is denied that on 5.11.2015 complainant has deposited Rs.6000/- with Cash Deposit Machine or the cash was not credited to his account. It is reiterated that the cash deposit machine  remained out of order from 4.11.2015 to 6.11.2015. Hence question of any deposit does not arise. The complainant has concocted false and frivolous story. All the other averments of the complainant are also denied.
7. It is also admitted that on 4.11.2015, one Aman Kumar put the amount in the machine. After deposit of the amount, machine went out of order. When the engineer visited the branch for repair of the machine, Rs.9400/- was struck in bucket. The same was refunded to Aman Kumar by the bank. It clearly shows that false and fabricated story was made by the complainant to grab the money from the bank. The OP has accepted the request of Aman Kumar only for the reason mentioned above. After controverting all the allegations, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of letter dated 4.12.2015,Ex.C1,copy of letter dated ,Ex.C2,copy of letter dated 21.3.2016,Ex.C3, copy of reply to letter Ex.C4, copy of letter dated 13.5.2016,Ex.C5,CD,Ex.C6, copy of legal notice,Ex.C7, copy of reply to legal notice,Ex.C8, postal receipt,Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
9. The OP tendered into affidavit of Jagdish Kumar, DM, Ex.OPA, copies of e-mails,Exs.OP1 &OP2 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. It is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the complainant has placed on record, CD,Ex.C6 which clearly proves that the complainant visited the CDM and made transaction. The OP was having best evidence by producing CCTV footage to rebut that no cash was put in the machine. OP has rather admitted that the machine was not working from 4.11.2015 to 6.11.2015.The complainant has alleged transaction on 5.11.2015. In case the machine was not working from 4.11.2015 to 6.11.2015, the OP was certainly to put notice intimating the customers to avoid transaction. The non credit of the amount in the account of the complainant can be due to non functioning of the machine also. The complainant is not to suffer for lapse on the part of the OP. The complainant remained debar from using of this amount since 5.11.2015. He also lost interest for this period. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed for.
12. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that in the complaint itself the complainant has admitted that he was told by the security guard that the machine is out of order from 4.11.2015. The complainant has also relied upon reply,Ex.C4 wherein the OP has made the entire factual position clear to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is abuse of the process of law. It is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
13. It is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the OP that OP has placed on record documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 which also proves that the machine was out of order. It further proves the case of the OP.
14. We have given consideration to the rival submissions.
15. The complainant is admittedly having account with the OP. It is the case of the complainant that he deposited sum of Rs.6000/- with Cash Deposit Machine of the OP but the amount was not credited to his account. The complainant has placed on record CD to prove that he visited CDM and made the transaction. Admittedly the amount  was not credited to the account of the complainant. The version of the OP is that the machine was out of order from 4.11.2015 to 6.11.2015. It is not the case of the OP that the notice was affixed on the machine intimating the customers that the machine is not working. In these circumstances, the complainant was having no reason not to put cash in the CDM when there was no notice for its not functioning.
16. It is also the case of the OP that sum of Rs.9400/- was struck from the machine and OP has concluded that this amount belongs to one Aman Kumar but there is no documentary evidence to corroborate this conclusion of the OP. The fact remains that the cash was found struck from the machine also. The OP has not produced any other CCTV footage to prove that the complainant has not made any transaction or had not put the amount in the CDM.
17. In these circumstances, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as costs and compensation. The OP is directed to credit the amount of Rs.6000/- to the account of the complainant. The complainant is also held entitled to admissible interest from 5.11.2015 onwards.
18. Compliance of the order be made by the  OP within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:8.11.2019       

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President