State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank vs Sompal Singh on 7 May, 2019
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 / 2016
Punjab National Bank, a Body Corporate and constituted under
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970
having its Head Office at 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066
and amongst others a Branch at Mata Mandir Road
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar
through its Branch Manager Sh. Roop Datta Sharma
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2
Versus
1. Sh. Sompal Singh S/o Sh. Bihari Singh
R/o Mohalla Kavinagar (Near Mata Mandir)
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar
...... Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. State Bank of India, a Body Corporate and constituted under
State Bank of India Act, 1955 having one of its Local Head Office
at Parliament Street, New Delhi and amongst others a Branch at
Moradabad Road, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar
service through its Branch Manager
...... Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1
Smt. Savita Sethi, Advocate, holding brief of Sh. R.S. Bajwa, Learned
Counsel for the Appellant
None for Respondent No. 1
Sh. S. Parashar, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Mr. Balveer Prasad, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 07/05/2019
ORDER
(Per: Balveer Prasad, Member):
This appeal has been preferred under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as the 'District Forum') in consumer complaint No. 18 of 2011; Sh. Sompal Singh Vs. Branch 2 Manager, State Bank of India and another, whereby the appellant - Punjab National Bank was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment along with Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- only.
2. The dynamics of the case is that the complainant is the consumer of State Bank of India, Moradabad Road, Kashipur, having Saving Account No. 30879449577. He was issued an ATM card bearing No. 6220181293700002504. On 20.08.2010, the ATM card was used by the complainant at the ATM of Punjab National Bank, with a view to withdraw an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, but due to some defect in the machine, the cash could not be dispensed and the SMS reflecting debit of the said amount from the complainant's account was received then and there. Complaint was lodged with the bank and even the doors of Lokpal were knocked, but nothing could come out in favour of the complainant. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, the consumer complaint was instituted.
3. Both the opposite parties - State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, furnished independent written statements, taking the stand that as per transaction reports, the complainant used the ATM card at Punjab National Bank, Kashipur and withdrew Rs. 10,000/-, the entries for the same effect find place in J.P. Log etc. No cause of action ever arose against the said banks, nor the banks committed deficiency in service.
4. The District Forum, on appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint on the terms mentioned in the order impugned.
35. Learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that the conduct of the complainant is not based on bonafide, as he himself withdrew the said amount through ATM. It was also argued that the District Forum has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its true spirit. It was further urged that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Punjab National Bank, as he was not the consumer of Punjab National Bank.
6. Learned counsel for State Bank of India made a submission that the State Bank of India played no role in the matter and moreover, the ATM transaction was complete and successful and, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
7. The written arguments were submitted by the complainant, forming part of the record, pointing it out that the order passed by the District Forum is perfectly justified and the same deserves to be affirmed by this Commission.
8. On having considered the submissions made and perusing the record, it is clear that the complainant is the consumer of State Bank of India and had no account with the Punjab National Bank. Admittedly, both these banks had reciprocal arrangement for the use of ATM facility. In the instant case, the complainant furnished affidavit, narrating all what is worded in the consumer complaint. Separate affidavits were filed by Sh. Kanhaiya Lal, Branch Manager, State Bank of India and Sh. Rajendra Singh Rawat, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, testifying on oath that the complainant has received the amount in question under transaction bearing No. 3204 and the response code is 000, signifying the transaction as successful.
49. The factum, as deposed by the Bank Managers, is substantiated with the J.P. Log Report and the relevant documents available on record. The complainant filed no rejoinder affidavit, in order to rebut the defence evidence given by State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank. Thus, adverse inference is drawn against the complainant. The transaction details goes on to confirm the response code as '000'. Thus, the affirmation confirms the genuineness of the withdrawal made by the complainant through ATM. The documents filed by the banks were neither denied specifically, nor challenged by way of rebuttal evidence. This state of affairs throws a sad reflection, as to the reliability of the facts narrated in the consumer complaint. In view of the elaborate procedure evolved by the banks to ensure that without the ATM card and knowledge of the PIN number, it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by any person from the ATM.
10. The District Forum attached no importance to the documentary evidence furnished by State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank. There is a presumption of the genuineness of the electronic evidence; it is regarded as genuine, unless rebutted by some reliable evidence. We are unable to locate any merit in the written arguments submitted by the complainant.
11. It is worth to remark that the reciprocal arrangements of banking institutions for use of ATM facility, provide the status of 'Beneficiary' to the consumers of different banks and, as such, the rule of privity of contract has no application in the matter. The spirit-soul of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also provides for better protection to the interest of consumers.
12. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant stand acknowledged accordingly. On overall analysis, we find that the 5 District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence furnished by the parties in correct perspective.
13. For the reasons stated as above, the order impugned is devoid of merits and hence, set aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing the appeal, be released in favour of the appellant.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (BALVEER PRASAD) K