State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Canara Bank, Branch G.T. Road, Khanna, vs Kuljit Singh S/O Sh. Bhag Singh, on 31 March, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 691 of 2011
Date of institution: 25.4.2011
Date of Decision: 31.3.2014
Canara Bank, Branch G.T. road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana
through its Manager.
.....Appellant/OP No. 3
Versus
1. Kuljit Singh S/o Sh. Bhag singh, R/o Village Bhamian, Tehsil
Khamanon, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. State Bank of Patiala, Branch Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon,
Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib through its Manager.
3. Regional Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Leela Bhawan, Choti
Baradari, Patiala.
.....Respondents No.2&3/OP No.1&2
Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
For respondents No.2&3 : None.
First Appeal against the order dated 15.3.2011
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant/OP No.3 (hereinafter referred as "OP No. 3") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 15.3.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib(hereinafter referred as "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No.109 dated 8.4.2010 vide which the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant(hereinafter referred as 'the 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2011 complainant') was allowed with the direction to OP No. 3 to refund Rs. 10,000/-, which was deducted unauthorisedly on 4.4.2009 and also to pay Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties on the allegations that he is having his saving bank account No. 13916 with OP No. 3 and has also availed the ATM facility. On 3.4.2009, he was having Rs. 26,689/- in his credit. On that day, he used his ATM card to withdraw a sum of Rs. 10,000/- of OP No. 1 at Khamanon. However, no money had come out of the machine. However, in the slip a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been stated to be deducted from the account of the complainant. He again used his ATM Card to withdraw another sum of Rs. 10,000/- and he received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and same amount was deducted from his account. However, in the pass book these transactions were shown in the day 4.4.2009. It was further submitted that on 4.4.2009 he had used the ATM Card at ATM Machine of OP No. 3 at Khanna. No money was received from the machine but entry of deduction of Rs. 10,000/- from his account had appeared. He requested OP No. 3 to correct the balance amount by giving credit of Rs. 20,000/- which was not received at the time it was using the ATM facility and on 16.4.2009, OP No. 3 gave a credit of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. But the credit of Rs. 10,000/- was not given to him, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, hence, the complaint.
3. The complaint was contested by the Ops. OP Nos. 1 & 2 in their written reply submitted that ATM card holder No. 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2011 4214582101000652 has used his ATM card on 3.4.2009 at 11.33 AM, which was not processed. Thereafter again he used the ATM at 12.08 PM for the balance inquiry and the card holder was informed that a sum of Rs. 26,689/- is outstanding in his account. Then the card holder at 12.18 PM used the card but again it was not processed. The card holder again used the card at 12.21 pm and had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. As per the JP log book, ATM log book and ATM record has not shown withdrawl of Rs. 20,000/-. In case there is an entry in the record of OP No. 3 then these Ops are not concerned. These Ops does not have any knowledge about the use of the ATM card by the complainant with ATM Machine of OP No. 3 on 4.4.2009, accordingly, it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of these Ops and complaint qua them be dismissed.
4. OP No. 3 in their separate written statement have taken the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in services on their part; complaint is false and frivolous, therefore, it be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant is having saving account No. 13916 with this OP and that he has also the ATM card facility. The entries of the operation of the account through ATM of OP No. 3 were reflected in the system of this OP on 4.4.2009 as 3.4.2009 was holiday, which showed that the complainant had made three transactions in his account. It was denied that the complainant had used ATM machine of OP No. 3 on 4.4.2009. On receiving the complaint from the complainant, the matter was taken with OP No. 1 4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2011 and when a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was received from OP No. 1, the same was credited in the account of the complainant on 16.4.2009. Since the complainant did not use his ATM card from the machine of OP No. 3 on 4.4.2009 as per their record, therefore, they are not liable to give any credit entry of Rs. 10,000/- as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP. Complaint against this OP is false and frivolous and the same be dismissed.
5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-A, copy of ATM Slip Ex. C- 1, information under RTI Act Ex. C-2, letter to the Manager SBOP, Khamano Ex. C-3, copy of passbook Ex. C-4, letter dt. 8.2.10 Ex. C- 5, ATM slips Ex. C-6 to C-11. On the other hand, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Jasbir Singh, Manager, SBOP, Khamanon Ex. RW-1/A, machine switch data Ex. R-1, detail of transactions with timings Ex. R-2. OP No. 3 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Paramjit Singh Kullar, Manager, Canara Bank, Branch Khanna Ex. RW-3/1, machine switch data Ex. R-3/A, letter Ex. R-3/B, letter/email of Canara bank Ex. R-3/C, D, E & F.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order observed that Rs. 10,000/-, which has been shown to withdrawn from the ATM Machine of OP Nos. 1 & 2 was credited in the account by 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2011 OP No. 3 after receiving information from OP Nos. 1 & 2 on 16.4.2009. With regard to use of ATM by the complainant on 4.4.2009 at Khanna for withdrawing a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, which was not taken out from the machine but it was deducted from his account. In case as per their version, the ATM was not used then how the amount was deducted from his account and ultimately, it was observed that there is deficiency on the part of OP No. 3. The complaint was accordingly accepted against OP No. 3 as stated above.
8. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/opposite party No. 3 has filed the present appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. In the grounds of appeal, the order so passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside because the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate that the complainant made a false averment that he operated the ATM machine on 4.4.2009 whereas ATM machine switch data dated 3.4.2009 and 4.4.2009 Ex. R-3/E an Ex. R-3/F clearly reflects that no transactions had taken place qua the ATM card of the complainant/respondent No. 1 whereas OP No. 1 has failed to produce the entire record of their ATM transaction dated 3.4.2009 and 4.4.2009. Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce on the record the transaction slip No. 9245 and 9246 at Khamano, accordingly, it was submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
6FIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2011
11. In case we go by the case of the complainant, he had used his ATM card in ATM machine of OP Nos. 1 & 2 at Khamanon on 3.4.2009. He operated two transactions but only one was successful. About the 2nd, it was not successful but the amount was deducted as per the entry in the transaction slip as well as in the account of the complainant. He filed the complaint with OP No. 3 and its information was sought from Op Nos. 1 & 2 and OP Nos. 1 & 2 confirmed that only one entry was successful for withdrawing Rs. 10,000/- and about the 2nd entry, it was not successful, although the amount was deducted from the account of the complainant and its credit was given to OP No. 3, which was credited in the account of the complainant. So far as the entry in the pass book dated 4.4.2009 has been concerned, it has been submitted by Op No. 3 that on 3.4.2009 it was Holiday, the data was received from OP Nos. 1 & 2 on 4.4.2009 in their data, therefore, the entries were made on 4.4.2009. Therefore, when OP No. 1 & 2 are admitting two transactions on 3.4.2009, if no record of slip No. 924519246 has not been produced is not material.
12. Now with regard to the use of ATM by the complainant with ATM machine of OP No. 3 at Khanna, he has not placed on the record any ATM transaction slip and further OP No. 3 has placed on the record the entire ATM switch room data dated 3.4.2009 and 4.4.2009, which does not show the use of ATM card by the complainant. However, at the same time in case we go through the entries in the account of the complainant Ex. C-4 before using the card on 3.4.2009, he had a sum of Rs. 26,689/- and his two entries 7 FIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2011 were made in the ATM machine of OP Nos. 1 & 2 and the balance was Rs. 6689/-. It is ATM debit card and it is not the case of OP No. 3 that it is a credit card. Debit card will be operated in case the sufficient amount is there in the account of account holder. Therefore, when for the 3rd time, the ATM was used the balance was just Rs. 6689/-, therefore, the entry of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be successful, therefore, in fact there was no 3rd transaction dated 4.4.2009 and amount was deducted from the account of the complainant on account of failure of the system for which only OP No. 3 is liable and this entry has not been corrected by the Ops and certainly, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 3.
13. In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned District Forum that OP No. 3 is liable to make the reverse entry of Rs. 10,000/- in the account of the complainant is correct. However, it has also been contended that the compensation so awarded by the learned District Forum is quite excessive. The provision of the CP Act cannot be to enrich any person and compensation should be in conformity with the deficiency in service. Therefore, qua the deficiency of Rs. 10,000/-, compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is highly excessive; that amount is ordered to be decreased to Rs. 5,000/-. However, the litigation expenses is remained the same.
14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly accepted. The order of the learned District Forum is modified as stated above.
8FIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2011
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.3.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
16. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 17,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 17,500/- be remitted to respondent No. 1/complainant with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
March 31, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram)
as Member