DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.77 of 26.2.2007 <br /> Decided on: 18.2.2008<br /> Gopi son of Sh.Chander Parkash R/o Luxmi Soda Water Wali Gali, Lahori Gate, Patiala. <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. The Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurbax Colony Branch, Patiala, through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2. Punjab National Bank, The Mall, Patiala through its branch Manager. <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur, Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.Lakhwinder Singh, adv.<br /> For opposite party No.1 Sh.M.M.Sayal, adv.<br /> For opposite party No.2 Sh.B.B.Gupta, adv.<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant Gopi has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant is having a saving <br /> a/c No.039000-0152098234 ,customer No.AOZ 000272 in Punjab National Bank, Sheranwala Gate, Patiala and having a balance in the account of Rs.5200/-approximately.That the complainant is also having a ATM card duly issued by Punjab National Bank, opposite party No.2 for the purpose of operating the same. That on 15.1.2007 the complainant visited the ATM of Oriental Bank of Commerce, opposite party No.1 at 11.36 AM for the purpose of encashment of the amount of Rs.5000/- from his account through ATM, but when the complainant inserted the ATM number with the ATM machine, he did not receive the amount of Rs.5000/- from the ATM machine. The complainant right from 11.36 AM upto 11.45 AM remained at the same place and tried 4/5 times by inserting the number and putting the ATM card in the machine to get the amount, but all times the complainant did not get the amount from the ATM machine of opposite party No.1.Even the complainant informed these facts to the security guard who was on duty with the ATM machine. The said security guard in presence of complainant talked to the Sr.Officer of opposite party No.1 and the security guard informed the complainant that he should visited the PNB Bank and give in writing to his bank. That the complainant when approached to the PNB Bank and came to know that from his account the amount of Rs.5000/- has been deducted whereas the complainant did not receive or get any amount from the ATM machine of opposite party No.1. The ATM machine of the opposite party No.1 is not properly working and as such the complainant did not receive or get any amount from the ATM machine. That the complainant after that approached to the opposite party No.1 and narrated whole of the facts and also submitted the details in writing, but inspite of all this nothing has been done sofar, only assurance has been given to the complainant as the complainant did not receive or get the amount of Rs.5000/- certainly the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.5000/-.That even the complainant came to know that some other persons are also facing the same problem as ATM machine of the opposite party No.1 is not providing the services and is not properly working. The ATM machine is as such is defective one which fact was admitted by the official of the opposite party No.1 That the complainant suffered a mental stock and is still under agony as the complainant did not receive or get the amount from ATM machine. However, the same has been deducted from his account, it is very strange enough when the complainant did not receive the amount from the ATM machine the same amount can be deducted from his account as such opposite party No.1 is playing a fraud and doing unfair trade practice by cheating the innocent customers. That as the ATM machine was defective one and as such the complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.5000/- from the bank and also alongwith the compensation for pain and agony suffered by the complainant. That it is the obligated duty on the part of opposite party bank to keep and maintain the ATM machine in order and to provide the better facilities to their customers. Moreover, ATM services were provided by the banks as per their norms of 24 hours and the customer without any hindrance can get the amount from the ATM machine at any moment. That due to the defect in ATM machine the complainant suffering a set back and could not fulfill his promises to the person to whom the complainant wanted to make the payment for his business purpose as such the complainant suffered a lot and moreover the official of the bank instead of helping the complainant, unnecessarily harassed the complainant and put off the matter without any reason or cause for number of days. The complainant number of times visited the opposite parties No.1 and 2 but both the opposite parties failed to fulfill their promises. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice on dated 19.1.2007 to both the opposite parties which was duly received by the opposite parties, but inspite of this legal notice till today no positive response received by the complainant from the hands of opposite parties. The complainant is still suffering at the hands of the opposite parties and this is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 knowingly and willfully failed to get the ATM machine remain in OK condition and put the customers in harassment condition and as such the complainant is entitled for the compensation on account of harassment and mental agony etc. to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from both the opposite parties. That the opposite parties are also directed to make necessary corrections in the account of the complainant as no amount has been received by the complainant from his account. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed separate written replies contesting the claim of the complainant.<br /> 4. In the written reply filed by opposite party No.1 it is alleged that as complainant is not an account holder of opposite party No.1 nor any ATM card has been issued to him by the opposite party No.1, therefore, he does not fall under the definition of consumer of opposite party No.1 and the complaint against the opposite party No.1 is not maintainable. The complainant, in fact has his saving bank account with opposite party No.2 which has issued to him on A.T.M.card also and therefore, the complainant might be a consumer of opposite party No.2.On 15.1.2007, the complainant had tried to encash an amount of Rs.5000/- from the A.T.M. machine installed in the bank premises of opposite party No.1, by using the ATM card issued to him by opposite party no.2, under MITR Bank CONSORTIUM SCHEME for sharing of ATMs net work by six Nationalized Banks including the opposite parties No.1&2.The complainant visited the ATM machine of the opposite party No.1 at Gurbax Colony,Patiala on 15.1.2007 for the purpose of encashment of an amount of Rs.5000/- from his saving bank account with opposite party No.2 through the ATM machine of opposite party No.1, and that the amount of Rs.5000/-was not paid by him by the said machine though his account was debited with a sum of Rs.5017/- and a complaint dated 15.1.2007 was submitted in writing by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 and Mrs.Shabnam , an officer, was deputed by the opposite party to verify the said complaint who after verification of the ATM machine reported that the cash of Rs.5000/- was not found in excess in the said ATM machine. Thus it is clear that due to certain facts known to the opposite party No.2, with whom the complainant was having his saving bank account, the cash of Rs.5000/-wasnot paid to him by the machine nor excess amount of Rs.5000/- was found in the ATM machine of the opposite party No.1. In fact the complaint of the complainant was attended to and investigator authority by the opposite party No.1, and thereafter as the complainant had his saving bank account with the opposite party No.2, from where he had been issued the ATM card also, the opposite party No.1 asked him to lodge the complaint with his bankers, the opposite party No.2 .At the same time the opposite party no.1 vide e-mail message dated 22.1.2007, brought whole of the matter to the notice of Sr.Manager,ATM Centre, Mumbai of opposite party No.1 for advising him for sorting out the matter with the complainant. At the same time, vide letter dtd.22.1.2007 the opposite party No.1 brought whole matter to the notice of General Manager, Incharge ATM.Centre, Secunderabad and sought their help and advice to sort out the complaint. Thereafter the matter was further pursued by the opposite party No.1 with opposite party No.2 by writing a letter dated 24.3.2007 in reply to which an e-mail message was received on 16.5.2007 from the opposite party No.2 to the opposite party No.1 vide which it was conveyed by the opposite party No.2, that the opposite party No.2 had credited the amount of Rs.5017/- to the saving bank account of the complainant on 14.3.2007.It is correct to say that the ATM machine of the opposite party No.1 was not working properly, as many other account holders had received cash from the said machine by using their ATM cards on 15.1.2007.It is wrong that opposite party No.1 has been playing any fraud and has been doing unfair trade practice by cheating the innocent customers. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1.All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied. The pleas that complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party No.1 and that the complaint has become infractuous as the amount has already been credited to the saving bank account of the complainant by opposite party No.2 his bankers on 14.3.2007 have also been taken and has prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 5. In the written reply filed by opposite party No.2 it is admitted that the complainant is having saving bank account No. 039000-0152098234 with the opposite party branch Sheranwala Gate,Patiala.As regards the balance is concerned, it is matter of records. It is wrong that the complainant approached the opposite party or informed any alleged occurrence. The allegations so made by the complainant are vague as he has not mentioned the date and time of his alleged visit to the opposite party. No person ever made any such complaint to the opposite party about the alleged working of the ATM of the opposite party no.1 i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce. It is denied that the complainant suffered any mental shock or agony. There was no fault on the part of opposite party No.2 in any manner whatsoever. The opposite party is not liable to pay any amount or compensation on any alleged account. The principal amount of Rs.5000/-plut interest thereon totaling Rs.5017/- has already been credited into the account of the complainant by the Oriental Bank of Commerce i.e. the opposite party No.1.So the opposite party No.1 has already returned the amount and that too alongwith interest. It is denied that the complainant visited the opposite party No.2.It is denied that the complainant is still suffering at the hands of the opposite parties. It is denied that there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to any compensation on any alleged account from both the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied. The pleas that complainant is not maintainable and that the complaint has become infractuous have also been taken and has prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 6. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,ExCW1/A.<br /> 7. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R2 of SP Gupta, affidavit RW2/a of H.J.S.Grewal, photo copy of e-mail message,Ex.R2,complaint dated 15.1.2007,Ex.R3,photocopy of e-mail message dated 12.1.2007,Ex.R4, letter dated 22.1.2007,Ex.R5, photo copy of e-mail message dated 16.5.2007,Ex.R6, photo copy of list of member banks,Ex.R7 and statements of account,Exs.R8 and R9.<br /> 8. The opposite party No.1 filed the written arguments whereas the complainant and opposite party No.2 did not file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.<br /> 9. Admittedly the complainant is having saving account No.030000-0152098234 with opposite party No.2. It is also admitted that the complainant is also having ATD card issued by Punjab National Bank ,The Mall,Patiala i.e. opposite party No.2 for the purpose of holding the same. It is also admitted fact that the complainant did not receive the cash amount of Rs.5000/-from the ATM machine of opposite party No.1 because of some defects in the ATM machine of opposite party No.2.According to the complainant he had operated the ATM on 15.1.2007.According to the admission of opposite party No.2 and as per the documents,Exs.R2 and R6, the opposite party No.1 has already given the credited in the saving bank Rs.5017/-in the saving bank account of the complainant i.e. Rs.5000/- being the principle amount and Rs.17/- on account of interest from the date of debit till the date of credit on 14.3.2007 and it is so recorded in the account of the complainant being maintained regularly in due course of business which is proved by the statements of account Exs.R8 and R9.So it is proved on record that the opposite party No.2 has already made good the loss of Rs.5017/-caused to the complainant due to some defect in the ATM system of opposite party No.2.<br /> 10. In view of our above discussion, we hold that the complainant could not withdraw the amount of Rs.5000/- from the ATM on 15.1.2007 as there occurred defect in the ATM system of opposite party No.2.So the complaint has become infractuous as the Oriental Bank of Commerce ,opposite party No.1 has already given the credit of Rs.5017/-i.e. Rs.5000/-being the principle amount and Rs.17/- on account of interest from the date of debit till the date of credit on 14.3.2007.So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, under the circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:18.2.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />