1
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM HOSHIARPUR.
C.C.No, 253/20.9.2010
Decided on : 01.03.2011
Jagmohan son of Gian Chand and Gulshan Rai s/o Jagmohan age 54 years residents of Ward no.13, Gandhi Chowk, Tanda District Hoshiarpur.
Complainants
vs.
1. Punjab National Bank, near bus stand branch Dasuya District Hoshiarpur through its Manager.
2. Canara Bank near police station, Branch Tanda District Hoshiarpur through its Manager.
Opposite parties
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh.P.D.Goel,President,
Mrs.Vandna Choudhary,Member.
Present; Sh K.C.Katnoria, counsel for the complainant.
Sh Y.P.Piplani,counsel for OP No.1.
Sh D.K.Bahl, counsel for OP No.2.
PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT
1. The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.”. In short,the facts of the case are that the complainants are the joint holders of account no.0615000100317754 with OP No.1 . That for withdrawing the money from ATM machine, OP No.1 issued ATM card no. 5044500615000005739.
2. It is the case of the complainants that on 6.10.2008, they inserted the ATM card in the ATM machine of OP No.2 in order to withdraw the amount of Rs.5000/-. That a transaction receipt no.4369 came out of the machine with the remarks “ transaction declined”. The complainants made another effort but again only transaction receipt no. 4394 came out of the machine with the remarks “transaction declined”.
3. It is further the case of the complainants that on the next day i.e. 7.10.2008, they collected the card from OP No.2 , and thereafter, withdrew the amount of Rs.5000/- from the ATM machine of OP NO.1. That the complainants were shocked to know that an amount of Rs.5000/- was wrongly debited . That on enquiry from OP NO.1, the debit entry of Rs.5000/- dated 6.10.2008 was found . It was told by OP NO.1 that the complainants would have withdrawn the amount of Rs.5000/- from some other bank and Rs.20/- have been charged for that transaction. The complainants approached the Branch Manager of OP NO.1, who it turn asked them to write a letter and matter will be solved within 3-4 days, as such, they wrote letter dated 7.10.2008 to OP NO.1. The complainants were also given a toll free registration no. 18001802222 and they got the complaints registered bearing complaint no. 11787478 dated 25.1.2009, 12231913 dated 10.2.2009, 13629328 dated 21.2.2009 and 15203919 dated 30.5.2009 respectively.
4. It is further the case of the complainants that in June,2009, OP No.1 disclosed that OP NO.2 had taken money from them, as such, they visited OP NO.2 with the request to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- but they were asked to contact OP NO.1. The OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainants, hence this complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 1 filed the reply. The preliminary objections vis-a-vis non-joinder of necessary parties, maintainability and cause of action were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the complaint has become infructuous as the amount of Rs. 5,000/- along with retrospective interest from 30.5.2009 has been credited in his Savings Bank Account on 26.10.2010. It is further replied that every Account Holder, who is having the facility of ATM Card is provided a helpline number, where he can lodge the complaint in respect of his grievance regarding the transactions made by him through ATM Machines. The complainant lodged the complaint through helpline number vide complaint No. 33307753 on 10.2.2009, and thereafter, the claim was lodged with Canara Bank – OP No. 2 on 12.2.2009 by the Transaction Banking Division, Head Office ATM Cell, New Delhi. The claim was also lodged by the Head Office of PNB, ATM Cell with the Canara Bank on 18.2.2009 against Complaint No. 13629328 of the complainant.
6. It is further replied that the Head Office of OP No. 1- PNB followed up the matter with Canara Bank – OP No. 2 through emails/letters/reminders dated 13.5.2010, 20.5.2010, 31.5.2010, 7.6.2010, 14.6.2010 and 21.6.2010.
7. It is further replied that the complainant operated the ATM machine of Canara Bank and not of PNB, and if he had operated the ATM machine of PNB, then the error would have been noticed on the very next day and the aggrieved person would have been compensated accordingly. It is further replied that the Canara Bank has received a credit of Rs.5000/- and thereafter, the amount has been debited to the PNB. It was the duty of the Canara Bank to reverse the amount of Rs. 5,000/- and to give credit to the PNB, which they have done during the pendency of the case on 25.10.2010.
8. It is further replied that the Canara Bank has received Rs. 5000/- in excess, so the Canara Bank was bound to give the credit of the said amount to PNB so as to enable PNB to make payment to the complainant. The delay in settling the complaint of the complainant is due to the delay on the part of the Canara Bank in reimbursing the excess money received by OP No. 2 – Canara Bank. Thus, they are liable to pay damages, if any. That the replying OP has been continuously following OP No. 2 for reimbursement of the excess money received by them, but they did not care for it and the settlement of the claim was delayed for this reason. The deficiency, if any, is due to the non-cooperation of OP No. 2.
9. OP No.2 filed a separate reply. Preliminary objections vis-a-vis maintainability and complainant is not a consumer were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the complainant is consumer of OP No.1 as they are having saving account with PNB, who had also issued ATM card to them . It is further replied that as per record, on 6.10.2008, ATM Card was put in operation on the ATM machine of the replying OP and vide transaction receipt no. 4394, the transaction was declined . It is denied that any transaction took place vide transaction receipt no. 4369 . The replying OP has not deducted the amount of Rs.5000/- from the account of the complainants. It is further replied that as and when the representation of OP NO.1 was received at reconciliation center, the amount of Rs.5000/- was paid to PNB- OP NO.1.
10. That on 27.10.2010, OP No.1 had moved an application to dispose of the complaint as refund of Rs.5000/- has been given to the complainant on 25.10.2010. The said fact is also evident from the statement of account Mark OP-3 filed by the OP No.1. More so, Ld. counsel for the complainant has also not disputed that the amount of Rs.5000/- has not been credited to the account of the complainant.
11. Now, it is established on record that the grouse of the complainant has been well met during the pendency of the complaint, therefore, he is certainly entitled for litigation costs which are assessed at Rs.1000/- to be paid to the complainant by OP No.1 within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.
Announced.
01.03.2011
(Mrs Vandna Choudhary) (P.D.Goel)
Member President
SS