Delhi

North

CC/61/2018

KEWLA NAND PANDEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No./61/2018

 

In the matter of

 

Sh. Kewla Nand Pandey

S/o Sh. Prem Vallabh Pandey

B-75, Uttranchal Vihar,

Loni, Ghaziabad,

Uttar Pradesh                                                                            ...Complainant

vs

The Manager,

Punjab National Bank

Bara Hindu Rao,

Delhi                                                                              ...Opposite party No.1

 

The Manager,

United Bank of India

Branch, Chandni Chowk        

Delhi-110006                                                                 ...Opposite party No.2

 

 

ORDER
06/03/2023

Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member);

          Jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked by Sh. Kewla Nand Pandey, the Complainant against, The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi as OP-1 and The Manager, United Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as OP-2.

  Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that, the Complainant is having a Savings Bank A/c No. 0274019115910 with OP-2. On 26.10.2017 around 1:30 pm, the Complainant used the debit card issued by   OP-2 to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from the ATM maintained by OP-1 at Bara Hindu Rao. As the money was not dispensed from the ATM, the Complainant again tried to withdraw Rs. 10,000/-. It has been stated by the Complainant that his account was debited for the transactions for which the money was not dispensed.

On 27.10.2017, the Complainant visited OP-1 and complained about the issue, where he was assured that after 15 days the debit entries will be reversed and credited to his account. Again, after 15 days, the Complainant was assured by OP-1 that the amount will be credited to his account.

After, one month, the Complainant was asked to register complaint online. Pursuant to that the Complainant registered online complaint on 05.12.2017 with P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, as well as with OP-1.

Thereafter, OP-1 asked the Complainant to share the police complaint/FIR. On 05.01.2018, 08.01.2018, reminders were sent to OP-1 and despite several visits his grievance was not addressed. On 26.12.2017 and 03.01.2018, the Complainant also visited OP-2, and was assured that the issue shall be resolved within 15 days, but of no avail.

The Complainant has also stated that he was not provided with CCTV footage by OP-1 despite request. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant has filed the present complaint with prayer for directions to OP-2 to credit Rs. 20,000/- in his SB A/c no. 0274010 115910; IFSC code UTB 10CCH701.

The Complainant has annexed the online information report dated 08.12.2017 to P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, registration of grievance online with United Bank of India of date 05.12.2017, online complaint made to consumer helpline dated 05.01.2018, complaint made to United Bank of India duly received on 08.01.2018, complaint lodged with banking ombudsman on 04.01.2018, emails requesting OP-1 to share the CCTV footage of date 31.01.2018 and reminders thereof with the complaint.

Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP-1 and OP-2, thereafter, Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-1. However, neither any reply was filed on behalf of OP-2, nor anyone appeared on their behalf despite service, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.07.2018.

OP-1 has taken several pleas in their defence such as the Complainant had suppressed material facts; proper court fee was not paid; no cause of action arose in the favour of the Complainant and against OP-1 and the present complaint was false, fabricated and frivolous.

It was denied that on 26.10.2017 the Complainant tried to withdraw cash using the ATM card issued by OP-2 from the ATM of OP-1 bearing ATM no. N90155000 and again tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from ATM bearing no. N50155000 and the same were unsuccessful. It was submitted that the transaction done by Complainant on 26.10.2017 was successful as per JP log.

They have further denied that Complainant visited OP-1 on 27.10.2017, where he was assured about the credit of the amount debited from his account. It has been submitted that in the month of January,2018, the Complainant had personally visited the branch of OP-1 and requested for the CCTV footage for the date of incident i.e 26.10.2017, where he was informed by the official that the CCTV footage of the ATM is saved for fixed period of time and after that fixed period the CCTV footage gets deleted automatically. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied. They have not annexed any document with the Written Statement.

Evidence by way of Affidavit has been filed by the Complainant, where the contents of the complaint have been reiterated. The Complainant has relied upon the documents annexed with the complaint and has got them exhibited. Online complaint dated 05.12.2017 made to P.S. Bara Hindu Rao, OP-1 and OP-2 as Ex.CW-1/1 to Ex.CW-1/4. Copy of the FIR as Ex.CW-1/5, reminder dated 05.01.2018 and 08.01.2018 to OP-1 are Ex.CW-1/6 and Ex.CW-1/7 respectively. Complaint to SHO P.S. Bara Hindu Rao and to Consumer Redressal Forum, Krishi Bhawan alongwith postal receipts as Ex.CW-1/8 to Ex.CW-1/10 respectively.

Sh. Upender Singh, Senior Manager/ Authorised Representative of Punjab National Bank was examined on behalf of OP-1. He has reiterated the contents of their Written Statement and has got exhibited JP log and Authorisation response codes and letter from digital banking division as Ex.RW-1/A (colly). In their Affidavit they have got exhibited the contents of the Written Statement as Ex.RW-1/B.

We have heard the arguments of the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-1,  appearing through video conferencing. The Complainant is aggrieved by debit of Rs.20,000/- on account of two transactions of Rs.10,000/- each on 26.10.2017 from the ATM of OP-1, despite the fact that money was not dispensed.

It is the case of the Complainant that his savings bank account with OP-2 was debited on the pretext of the above mentioned transactions being successful. As per Ex. CW-1/4, the Complainant has registered an online complaint with OP-205/12/2017 and FIR was registered with P.S. Bara Hindu Rao on 08/12/2017 Ex. CW-1/1 reporting the incident and complaint to OP-1 is Ex. CW-1/3. Another complaint which was duly received on 08.01.2018, which bears that as directed by OP-2 the Complainant has got registered FIR, online complaint for the redressal of his grievance.

In support of his case the Complainant has filed emails requesting OP-1 to share CCTV footage, and subsequently the reminders thereof, an Email dated 31.01.2018, addressed to ‘cocdelcomp@pnb.co.in, zodelhi@pnb.co.in, nfsacquirer.isg@pnb.co.in, tbdlpci@pnb.co.in, pkkohli@pnb.co.in’ which bears the subject as ‘FWD:FW: required CCTV footage for card_652171XXXXXX2287****URGENT*****REMINDER*********5’, where OP-2 has requested OP-1 to share the CCTV footage of the concerned ATM of OP-1. The said request has neither been replied nor complied with by OP-1.

OP-1 in support of their defence, that the transactions done by the Complainant were successful, have filed JP log [Ex.RW-1/A (colly)] pertaining to ATM bearing no. N9015500 and N50155000. In the said document, the transactions for ATM bearing no. N9015500 we see that log showing           TXN no. 7822 to TXN no. 7839 has been filed. However, it is seen that after TXN. No. 7822, the JP log shows TXN no. 7827, the transaction from 7823 to 7526 are missing. They have also filed the certificate stating that no excess cash was found.

As per the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) circular NPCI/2012-13/NFS/2737 dated 26.03.2013, in case of the disputed transaction, the acquirer bank must provide three transactions before and three transactions after the ‘Disputed transaction’ in the JP/EJ ATM logs. In the present case the disputed transaction is TXN no.7832, therefore as per the circular; OP-1 was required to file JP log depicting transaction from             TXN No.7829 to TXN No.7835. It is interesting to note that TXN no. 7829, 7833 and 7835 are missing which amounts to   non-compliance of the above mentioned circular. The JP log filed by OP-1 doesnot inspire confidence and casts a doubt on the document.

This circular also states that all banks have to facilitate providing CCTV images of failed ATM transactions to Bank customers when requested.

It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission in ‘State Bank of India Vs. Sansar Chand Kapoor and Ors.’ (2015) CPJ 135 (NC) as under;

“It is an admitted case that CCTV recording was provided by the respondent No.2 - Punjab National Bank to the petitioner State Bank of India but despite request of the complainant a copy of the said video footage was not provided to him. Though according to the petitioner-bank the said video footage was shown to the complainant and his son-in-law when they visited the bank, that in our opinion would not be sufficient and considering the fraudulent withdrawal claimed by the complainant, the bank ought to have made available a copy of the aforesaid CCTV footage to the complainant. The petitioner-bank, therefore, was deficient in rendering services to the complainant, by not making available a copy of the aforesaid CCTV footage to him. For the reasons stated hereinabove the order of the District Forum and the State Commission to the extent the petitioner-bank has been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant along with interest is set aside. However, the order to the extent it awards compensation and cost of litigation to the Complainant is upheld.”

 

Following the observations of Hon’ble National Commission in Sansar Chand Kapoor (supra), Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 1020/2014, decided on 01.03.2023, titled as ‘State Bank of India Vs. Ms. Madhu Chawla’ also held that non supply of copy of CCTV to the complainant shall amount to deficiency in service on the part of the bank.

 

It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for OP that no deficiency in service can be attributed against them and has relied on judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC titled as “State Bank of India Vs. K.K. Bhalla” II (2011) CPJ 106 (NC). We have gone through the judgement. The facts of the case are not attracted to the present complaint, where in K.K. Bhalla (supra) was a case of fraudulent withdrawal but in the present case, the complaint is with respect to                non-dispensing of money from the ATM of OP-1.

Therefore, in the light of above judgements and directions as per NPCI circular ,OP-1 has not only failed to share the CCTV footage as  requested by OP-2 but also did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant.

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we hold OP-1 deficient in services. OP-1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in services.

          This order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of non-compliance of this order by the OP-1, the above awarded compensation shall carry interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be uploaded on the website also.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                      (Ashwani Kumar Mehta)

Member                                             Member

 

 

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

President