Haryana

StateCommission

A/198/2016

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJENDER MOHAN - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.BHATIA

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      198 of 2016

Date of Institution:      08.03.2016

Date of Decision :       08.06.2016

 

Punjab National Bank, Branch Office GT Road, Karnal through its Manager.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Vijinder Mohan s/o Sh. Basheshar Nath, Resident of House No.116/13, Dhobi Mohalla, Karnal, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                          

Present:               Shri H.S. Bhatia, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent in person.   

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Punjab National Bank-Opposite Party is in appeal against the order dated 8^th January, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby Complaint No.127 of 2013 filed by Vijender Mohan-complainant (respondent herein) was allowed directing the appellant/opposite party as under:-

“…we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to make the payment of Rs.15000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at bank rate from 25.12.2012 till realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Party shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

2.           Vijender Mohan-respondent/complainant, maintained Saving Account No.0259000110318538 with Punjab National Bank (PNB)-Opposite Party/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank’). He also availed the facility of Automated Teller Machine (for short ‘ATM’).

3.      The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that on December 25^th, 2012, he wanted to withdraw Rs.15,000/- from ATM of the bank and attempted twice, but the amount was not received by him and both the times slips were received whereby transaction was declined. He again used the ATM to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- from some other ATM. After some time he received message on his mobile telephone that an amount of Rs.15,000/- was debited in his account. He complained to the Manager of the bank, but of no avail. Alleging it deficiency in service on the part of the bank/Opposite Party, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Opposite Party/appellant in its reply stated that after receiving complaint regarding transaction dated 25^th December, 2012, it was referred to the PNB Call Centre, Delhi and ATM reconciliation Call Delhi. The bank had called an engineer of ATM and sought report of the transaction in question. The engineer submitted report dated 25^th January, 2013 that the transaction was successful and no error was found in J.P. Roll. It was made clear that the bank has CCTV footage and the complainant could see the same during banking working hours. The bank was also ready to provide CCTV footage in CD subject to depositing required fee. However, the complainant did not opt to do so. Denying the claim of the complainant, dismissal of the complaint was prayed for. 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the opposite party as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.   Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has argued that the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.15,000+10,000) by using ATM. In support, reference was made to J.P. Roll of the ATM bearing ID No.5025900 (Annexure A/4 and A/5).

7.     The respondent/complainant who is present in person admits both the ATMs are located in one booth. J.P. Roll (Annexure A/5) for the said date i.e. 25.12.2012 bearing ID No.D1025900 shows that the complainant had made two attempts; one at 14:05 and second at 14:09 hrs. Both were unsuccessful transactions. J.P. Roll of the second ATM machine located in the same booth bearing IDD5025900 (Annexure A/4), shows that the complainant made first transaction bearing No.6199 at 14:09 hrs for withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- which was successful. The next attempt at 14:15 hrs bearing transaction No.6203 was also successful. The next attempt was also made at 14:16 hrs which was declined with the remarks “Daily WD limit reached”.  WD stands for withdrawal.

8.     It is also undisputed that the maximum limits for withdrawal of cash for operating ATM in a single day was Rs.25,000/- during the year 2012. The complainant had withdrawn Rs.15,000/- vide transaction No.6199 and Rs.10,000/- vide transaction No.6203. Thus, he had withdrawn the cash permissible within a day.

9.     The contention of the respondent/complainant that he did not receive Rs.15,000/-,  does not find support from any evidence. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint observing that when one transaction at 14:09 hrs from ATM ID No.5025900 was unsuccessful, he could not be present at the other ATM  at 14:09 hrs vide which he withdrew Rs.15,000/- vide transaction No.6199. The District Forum did not consider the fact that both the ATMs machines are located in the same booth and are adjoining to each other. He was not to go to third place for locating the machine. J.P. Roll showing both the transactions being successful and withdrawal of Rs.25,000/-, the denial of complainant does not find support.  In this view of the matter, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the amount of Rs.15,000/- was not withdrawn by the complainant. In view of this, District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint without appreciating the aforesaid evidence. Thus, this Commission does not find it a fit case to attribute any deficiency on the part of the appellant-Opposite party-Bank.

10.   In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.   The statutory amount of Rs.12,500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant-opposite party against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 08.06.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL