Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/202

Arun Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yes Bank - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

08 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 202 dated 28.09.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 08.09.2022.

 

Er. Arun Garg, aged about 52 years son of Sh. Sham Lal Garg, resident of House No.40, Central Town, Near Keys Hotel, Pakhowal Road, Village Dad, P.O. Lalton, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                        ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Yes Bank Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director, Yes Bank Tower, ICF-2, 15^th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 013.     
2. Branch Manager, Yes Bank Limited, BRS Nagar Branch, I-Block Market, Police Station Road, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                     …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,      2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Amrit Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he maintains two savings account with OP1 bank bearing No.00812 and 00983. The first account is a HUF account of which the complainant is a Karta and the other account is in the joint name of the complainant and one of his family members. The complainant has been operating both the accounts. On 03.02.2020, the complainant visited OP2 branch for transfer of Rs.50,000/- from his first account to second account as the requisite balance in the second account was less while a cheque has been issued from the said account. However, when the complainant reached outside the OP branch at about 01.00 PM, the main shutter of the bank had been rolled down.  When the complainant enquired as to why the shutter had been rolled down, he was asked by somebody from inside the bank to wait for two minutes but the shutter was not opened for about 7-8 minutes but 2-3 persons could be seen inside the tainted glass adjoining to the closed shutter. The complainant again knocked at the shutter but the man from inside shouted at the complainant and spoke to him in a very rude manner. The complainant kept waiting about 10 minutes. The complainant had to attend a bhog ceremony in a nearby area and he was getting late. The shutter was opened after a period of more than 10 minutes. As the complainant entered the bank, a man started quarrelling with him saying as to why he was insisting to open the shutter while cash was being put in the ATM machine. The complainant told him that he was never told by anybody that cash was being put in the ATM machine. Even otherwise, there was no need to close the shutter of the branch for  putting cash in the ATM machine. Due to the fact that the man inside the bank spoke badly to the complainant and quarreled with him due to which the complainant became hypersensitive. Thereafter, the complainant went to the lady who was sitting at the seat of cashier for getting the amount transferred. In the meanwhile, the same man came and started again quarrelling with the complainant. He was told by the lady at the cash counter that the Manager was not present. After five minutes, the Manager also came to the bank. The complainant lodged a complaint that he was made to wait outside the bank for 10 minutes due to closure of the shutter and was also misbehaved by an official of the bank upon which the lady at the cash counter talked to the branch manager on phone and told him about the incident. She also felt sorry saying that there was no such rule for closure of the shutter while putting cash in the ATM machine. The complainant came back after completing the transfer of Rs.50,000/- but he got late for attending bhog ceremony. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and also amounts to violation of consumer rights and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. It the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to take action against the erring staff members and to pay a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- as compensation and damages to the complainant.    

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complaint has been filed only to damage the goodwill and reputation of the OPs. According to the OPs, OPs have unnecessarily been dragged into the complaint they never intended to insult any of its customers much less the complainant. Moreover, the employee who was replenishing the cash in the ATM machine was of third party vendor. The OPs have further pleaded that when the complainant visited the branch of OP2 wherein the ATM machine was located, a representative of Hitachi Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.  was replenishing the cash in the said ATM. Therefore, as a measure of security and in order to avoid any mis-happening, the shutter of OP2 branch was closed. For cash replenishment in the ATM, the custodian operating the ATM opens the same and refills cash in the designated cassettes allotted in the ATM. After replenishment cash in the ATM, the same was locked. In order to ensure security of the staff and the cash being refilled in the ATM, the access to ATM is restricted  during such time. Since there was a common entrance to the branch and the ATM cabin, the shutter was closed only for the purpose of cash replenishment. When the complainant started knocking at the door, the representative of the said vendor informed him that the operation of replenishment of cash in the ATM machine was in progress and he was asked to wait for some time.  However, instead taking cognizance of the same, the complainant started shouting at the representative forcing him to open the shutter immediately as he was in a hurry without understanding the situation. The complainant kept on arguing with the said representative. The complainant even shouted at the lady staff of the bank. The branch officials of OP2 were not involved in cash replenishment in the ATM. The complainant was made to understand the reason of closure but he kept abusing and arguing with the staff. The OPs reserve their right to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for his misbehavior towards the lady staff. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Senior Manager of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 and closed the evidence.

5                 The complainant has not been appearing in this case since 14.07.2022. We have heard arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs and gone through the record. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

6.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that on 03.02.2020, he was made to wait for about 10 minutes outside the branch ofOP2 bank as the shutter of the branch had been put down and he was not allowed to enter the bank. On enquiry, he was told that cash was being replenished in the ATM machine. It has also been claimed that one person standing inside the bank spoke rudely with the complainant. However, it has been categorically stated by the OPs in written statement that there is a common entrance of the branch and the ATM cabin and this part of the written statement has not been controverted by the complainant by filing replication. The complainant has surprisingly claimed in the complaint that there is no need to close the shutter for replenishment of cash in the ATM machine which is an absolutely preposterous plea. It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever the cash is replenished in an ATM machine, the machine has to be opened. The entire process has to be done discreetly without exposing the ATM machine/area to the public view for security reasons. Even otherwise, considering law and order issues and the fact that many untoward incidents have taken place with regard to stealing of cash from the ATM machine, it is absolutely necessary to take abundant caution while replenishing cash in the ATM machine. Therefore, the complainant should have acted with restraint once he was told by a person from inside the bank to wait while the cash was being replenished in the ATM. It appears that instead of showing patience, which was expected of a good citizen under the situation, the complainant started unnecessary arguing with the bank staff including lady officials or the persons from a third party team who were replenishing cash in the ATM machine and also misbehaving with the lady staff in the bank. It is a matter of common knowledge that quite often ATM machines are attacked by miscreants to steal cash. Therefore, banking staff are supposed to take extra caution to prevent occurrence of such incidents. In the given circumstances, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Arun Garg Vs Yes Bank Ltd.                                          CC/20/202

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. Amrit Singh, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 14.07.2022.

                   Arguments on behalf of the OPs heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.