DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.267 of 08-06-2011 Decided on 16-11-2011
Mohit Garg S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar, Resident of New Bhagat Singh Colony, Street No.6, Modern Secular Public School, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda, aged about 21 years. .......Complainant Versus
The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. State Bank of Patiala, Rampura Phul Branch, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda, through its Chief Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Saudagar Singh, counsel for the complainant For Opposite parties: Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No.1 opposite party No.2 exparte
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is account holder bearing No.0403000109241471 alongwith ATM Card with Punjab National Bank, Rampura Phul. The complainant has alleged that on 09.08.2010, the complainant through the ATM machine of State Bank of Patiala tried to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/-, the transaction was not successful but the amount was shown to have been withdrawn from his account. The complainant complained regarding the same and informed the Bank that his withdrawal transaction was not successful. As such after due verification, the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was again credited to the account of the complainant on 09.08.2010. Thereafter, on 28.03.2011, the Bank has again debited that amount of Rs.10,000/- to the account of the complainant on the ground that it has not received the said amount from the complainant. The complainant cannot be burdened with the amount of Rs.10,000/- if there is any system failure of the ATM due to any other technical reason or if the State Bank of Patiala has not returned the said amount. The said matter is between the two banks and the complainant cannot be punished for the same. The complainant approached and requested many times the opposite parties with regard to the said matter but the bank did not pay any heed to his requests. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 has filed its separate written statement and admitted that the complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of the opposite party No.2 but the transaction was not successful. The amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited back to the account of the complainant on 09.08.2010. The said amount was credited back, pending verification of the transaction on the part of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 has further admitted that on 28.03.2011, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was again debited in the account of the complainant as the opposite party No.2 has charged the said amount from the opposite party No.1 stating the transaction dated 09.08.2010 to be successful. The opposite party No.2 has conveyed that they have verified the transaction and it was successful and Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant from their ATM. The opposite party No.1 has denied that there was any system failure of the ATM and if, there was any defect in the ATM, the liability is of opposite party No.2 only. 3. Sh. Davinder Kumar on behalf of opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement. Thereafter, he never appeared in this Forum neither tendered the evidence nor led arguments on the party of opposite party No.2. Hence, the exparte proceeding are taken against opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 has pleaded in its written statement that the complainant had used the ATM of the opposite party No.2 on 09.08.2010 four times by making entries of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- and in this way, the total amount of Rs.35,000/- has been shown to be paid to his account with Punjab National Bank. As per Electronic Data of J.P.Roll (TXN NO.4748), Response Code 000, the transaction was successful. The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded that the complainant has submitted one application which has been shown to have been received by Punjab National Bank on 26.04.2011 in which, he has mentioned the amount to be withdrawn Rs.25,000/- but the ATM entry of State Bank of Patiala shows that the complainant has tried his card four times for Rs.35,000/-. The said matter is to be decided by opposite party No.1 as the card holder is account holder of the said bank. Further, the complainant has not placed any evidence against the opposite party No.2. 4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 6. The complainant has submitted that on 09.08.2010 to meet his requirements, he used the ATM of State Bank of Patiala and tried to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- but the transaction was not successful. The amount was shown to have been withdrawn from the account of the complainant. The complainant had complained the same to the Bank regarding non withdrawal of money and after due verification, the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was again credited to the account of the complainant on 09.08.2010 i.e. on the same day and thereafter, the complainant has been operating his account successfully and also been doing transactions i.e. withdrawal and deposits in his said account. On 28.03.2011, the Bank has again debited the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the account of the complainant on the pretext that it has not received the said amount from the complainant. The complainant has submitted that this act of the bank is against law and amounts to unfair trade practice and the complainant cannot be burdened with the amount of Rs.10,000/- if there is any system failure of the ATM due to any other technical reason or if the State Bank of Patiala has not returned the said amount. The said matter is between the two banks and the complainant cannot be punished for the same. The transaction of Rs.10,000/- through State Bank of Patiala was not successful and both the banks knew the same. 7. The opposite party No.1 has submitted that the complainant has concealed the fact that he withdrew Rs.25,000/- in total i.e. Rs.10,000/-; Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on 09.08.2010 from the ATM of the opposite party No.2. The complainant has only discussed about one transaction of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant had utilized the ATM of the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.1 has to credit the amount from the account of the complainant and the opposite party No.2 has to credit the amount from the opposite party No.1, declaring the transaction to be successful. If there is any defect in the ATM or the transaction was not successful, only in that case the liability was only of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 has admitted that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited back to the account of the complainant on 09.08.2010 as the transaction was unsuccessful. The said amount was credited back but the verification of the transaction on the part of the opposite party No.2 was pending. The opposite party No.1 has also admitted that on 28.03.2011, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was again debited to the account of the complainant as the opposite party No.2 has charged the said amount from the opposite party No.1 stating the transaction dated 09.08.2010 to be successful. The opposite party No.2 has intimated that they have thoroughly verified the transaction and it was successful and Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant from their ATM. The opposite party No.1 has further submitted that the complainant has falsely alleged that there was balance of Rs.46,705/- as per J.P. Roll; Ex.R-3 after transaction No.4748 as the amount was credited back to the account of the complainant. 8. A perusal of written statement of the opposite party No.2 reveals that the complainant has used the ATM of the opposite party No.2 on 09.08.2010 four times by making the entries of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- and a total sum of Rs.35,000/- has been shown to be paid to him from the account of Punjab National Bank. As per Electronic Data of J.P.Roll (TXN NO.4748), Response Code 000, shows the transaction is successful. The complainant has submitted one application which was shown to have been received by Punjab National Bank on 26.04.2011. In this letter, he has mentioned the amount to be withdrawn Rs.25,000/-. In this application, he has also mentioned that he had gone for withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- but the ATM entry of State Bank of Patiala shows the complainant tried his card four times for Rs.35,000/-. The matter is to be decided by Punjab National Bank as the card holder is account holder of the said bank as per details mentioned by the complainant. The opposite party No.2 has further submitted that the opposite party No.2 has been impleaded in the complaint as the complainant had used the ATM of the opposite party No.2. On 09.08.2010, the complainant has tried his ATM card 4 times to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- in the ATM of State Bank of Patiala, Rampura Phul. Moreover, the complainant has stated that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not given by the ATM of the opposite party No.2 but there are 192 transactions where the amount has been withdrawn by the ATM account holders of the State Bank of Patiala. 9. The complainant has written various letters to the manager of the Punjab National Bank that the transaction regarding the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not successful and requested the opposite parties to credit the said amount in his account. 10. Ex.R-3 and Ex.R-4 shows that on 09.08.2010, the first transaction has been done by the complainant for Rs.10,000/- on 18:36, the second transaction was done for Rs.10,000/- on 18:38 and thereafter, the third transaction was done for Rs.5,000/- on 18:39 as such, the complainant has done three transactions of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- but in his complaint, he has nowhere mentioned that how many transactions on 09.08.2010 have been done by him and what amount was withdrawn by him. 11. The dispute in the present case is regarding the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and these were not withdrawn, meaning thereby the transaction was unsuccessful and the opposite party No.1 on the complaint of the complainant, credited the amount of Rs.10,000/- to his account and again debited the same amount from his account. The matter appears to be highly technical which can be resolved by giving the opportunity to the parties to lead their detailed evidence as such, this type of matters cannot be resolved through summary procedure as the procedure prescribed under the 'Act' is summary in nature. 12. Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances and record placed on file, the detailed elaborated and voluminous evidence is required which is not possible under the 'Act'. The support can be sought by the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Synoo Industries Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors., I(2002) CPJ 16 (SC), wherein it has been held:- “.....Detailed Evidence to be Led: Case cannot be disposed of in Summary Fashion: National Commission Rightly gave Liberty to Appellants to move Civil Court.” Thus, this complaint is dismissed and the parties are left to bear their own costs. The complainant is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievances from Civil Court if so advised and permitted by law. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 16-11-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
