DATE OF FILING : 01-08-2013. DATE OF S/R : 26-08-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 12-03-2014. Raja Ram Sharma, son of Sri Bhagirath Sharma, residing at 13, Belilious Road, P.S. Howrah, District – Howrah.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, 2 No. Belilious Road, Howrah, PIN – 711101. 2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, AG TOWER, 3rd floor, 125/1, Park Street, Kolkata – 17. 3. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, 44, Park Street, Kolkata – 700015. 4. The Circle Manager, Punjab National Bank, Rajendra Bhawan Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110008.--------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The instant case was filed by the complainant by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) against the o.ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g),2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant Raja Ram Sharma has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to refund Rs. 15,000/- together with interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for causing mental pain and agony with litigation costs. 2. The complainant an ATM Card holder of o.p. no. 1 ( herein Punjab National Bank, Howrah ), having S.B. Account No. 6096000100029711 and ATM being no. 5126520205167336 was wrongly debited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 20-06-2013 as shown in the bank pass book as it was withdrawn from ATM in spite of the fact that he never withdrew the said amount from the ATM. Being at a loss the complainant ran from pillar to post but with no tangible result. Hence the complaint. 3. The o.p. no. 1, Manager, B/O, Howrah Maidan in its written version denied the material allegations and contended interalia that as per documentary evidence clearly revealed and established beyond any pale of doubt that there has been “successful transaction” on ATM Card on the date / time specified in the petition of the complainant and that to it is not possible to withdraw money from the ATM counter by any ATM Card holder until and unless the secret code number are pushed as per demand. As such this answering o.p. no. 1 stated that the allegation as made out by the complainant is absolutely baseless and liable to be denied and may be dismissed with explanatory costs and no question of deficiency in service against the o.ps. does arise. 4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? DECISION WITH REASONS : 5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant is the ATM card holder. The complainant noticed on 20-06-2013 during up to date the pass book and after receiving the bank pass book that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was withdrawn from ATM and subsequently lodged a complaint to o.p. no. 1 ( complaint no. 5990700 ) in spite of the facts that the complainant never withdrew any amount through ATM. Surprisingly the complainant further compelled to lodge a complaint on 22-06-2013 being complaint no. 59917583 to the o.p. no. 1 having not provided any satisfactory answer from the o.p. no. 1. 6. Moreover, having received different complaints respectively dated 20-06-2013, 22-06-2013 and 06-07-2013 the o.p. no. 1 kept mum and in spite of receiving several complaints the o.p. no. 1 did not take any positive action regarding adjustment of the said amount and also not providing any information regarding forcefully deducted amount of Rs. 15,000/- as per bank pass book. The complainant also lodged a G.D.E to the local P.S. stating all the facts vide no. 1336 dated 13-07-2013. 7. The o.p. no. 1 cannot have any proper explanation for such ghost discrepancies of the money. The conduct of the o.p. no.1 to shave the entire dispute under the carpet on the fragile plea of police investigation being pending is not at all supportable. The CCTV footage if scanned could not ascertain the existence of the complainant for that particular moment before the ATM counter. Instead of discharging their obligation the bank authority thought it better to shift entire responsibility upon the complainant and to pass necessary advices to their counter parts to take a positive step to mitigate the grievances of their valued customer. 8. In our considered opinion that the o.p. no. 1 cannot shift its responsibility as they are the custodian of the savings account of the complainant and he is to be held responsible for the momentary loss of the complainant. If the customer lacks faith upon the custodian and service provider for their recalcitrant attitude, the people are to suffer in the long run. The complainant left no stone unturned for getting redress and ran from pillar to post for replenishment of his hard earned money. In our estimation it is o.p. no. 1 who is held responsible for the ultimate loss of the complainant. The o.p. no.1 respite from the rigorous of law. In the result the complaint succeeds. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 265 of 2013 ( HDF 265 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.p. no. 1. The O.P. no. 1 do pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 20-06-2013 as a full and final settlement. The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for prolonged mental pain and agony and a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- from the o.p. no. 1. The O.P. no. 1 do pay decreetal dues within 30 days from the date of this order failing the entire amount shall carry interest @ 11% p. a. till full satisfaction. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( P. K. Chatterjee ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
