State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank vs Vineet Kumar & Another on 7 February, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 / 2014
Punjab National Bank
19, Civil Lines, Near Hotel Prakash
Roorkee, District Haridwar
Through its Branch Manager
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2
Versus
1. Sh. Vineet Kumar S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Singh
R/o F-1, A.N. Khosla Bhawan, IIT Roorkee
Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. State Bank of India
IIT, Roorkee Branch, District Haridwar
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1
Sh. S.M. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Respondent No. 1 in person
Sh. S. Parashar, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 218 / 2014
State Bank of India
IIT, Roorkee, Tehsil Roorkee, Haridwar
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Vineet Kumar S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Singh
R/o F-1, A.N. Khosla Bhawan, IIT Roorkee
Tehsil Roorkee, Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Punjab National Bank
Civil Lines Branch, Near Hotel Prakash
Roorkee, District Haridwar
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. S. Parashar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Respondent No. 1 in person
Sh. S.M. Joshi, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 07/02/2018
ORDER
(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):
These two appeals, one by the opposite party No. 1 and another by the opposite party No. 2, filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arise out of the same order dated 21.08.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 479 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/-, severally, to the complainant, within one month from the date of this order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant has an account in the State Bank of India, IIT Roorkee Branch-opposite party No. 1 bearing account No. 31580552288. On 21.10.2013 at about 07:00P.M., the complainant went to PNB ATM, Civil Lines, Roorkee-opposite party No. 2 and used his ATM card in the ATM machine to withdraw the money. But the said ATM machine was hanged and not responding. The complainant cannot withdraw the money, as the ATM machine was not working. So the complainant has pressed the Cancel/Clear button. He waited for 20 minutes to see the working of machine, but it did not. At about 07:50P.M., he got a message on his mobile that Rs. 10,000/- has been withdrawn, whereas he did not enter any amount. On the next day, he personally contacted both the opposite parties Bank and filed a complaint to Customer Care also. But opposite parties did not take any action against the complainant's complaint. Therefore, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar and prayed for Rs. 10,000/-, which was not provided by the ATM machine and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 20,000/- for financial and physical loss.
33. The opposite party No. 1-State Bank of India has filed written statement before the District Forum and has admitted para No. 1 of the consumer complaint and denied para Nos. 2 to 7. In additional pleas, the answering opposite party has pleaded that the consumer complaint is filed on false and frivolous facts and the same is not maintainable before the Forum below. It is not admitted that on 21.01.2013 at 07:00P.M. ATM machine was not working and complainant could not withdraw his money. It is also not admitted that the complainant received a message at 07:50P.M. on his mobile No. 9411223376 about deduction of Rs. 10,000/- from his account. The proper action was taken at complainant's complaint by the answering opposite party. After inspection, it was found that the transaction of Rs. 10,000/- was successful and no excess amount was found in ATM cash tray. There is no lack of service on the part of answering opposite party and the complainant has not suffered any pain or agony. The complainant filed a consumer complaint without any just and sufficient cause. So the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The opposite party No. 2-Punjab National Bank has filed objections before the District Forum and has pleaded that the complainant has filed a consumer complaint on false and frivolous facts. According to the record, the transaction in question was successful. The ATM of answering opposite party was properly functioning. It is not admitted that the complainant received a message at 07:50P.M. on his mobile No. 9411223376 about deduction of Rs. 10,000/- from his account without any transaction. Therefore, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
5. The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record has allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 21.08.2014 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 1-appellant has filed First Appeal No. 196 of 2014 and opposite party No. 2-appellant 4 has filed First Appeal No. 218 of 2014, thereby assailing the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
6. We have heard Sh. S.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sh. S. Parashar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No. 196 of 2014; Sh. S. Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sh. S.M. Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No. 218 of 2014 and respondent No. 1-Sh. Vineet Kumar in person in both the appeals. We have also perused the entire record of the District Forum as well as material placed on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Punjab National Bank has stated in the appeal that the Forum below erred in allowing the complaint against the appellant and also erred in appreciating the fact that the cash reconciliation report has showed that no excess cash was found in the ATM and JP Log has confirmed a cash withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/-. The impugned order is erroneous on facts as well as on Law and the Forum below has wrongly awarded punitive compensation. The judgment of the Forum below is based on presumption and surmises not borne out of record. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-State Bank of India has stated in the appeal that the District Forum has erred in holding that since the CCTV footage was not filed the complaint should be allowed. The circumstances of the case the CCTV footage had no relevance at all, because CCTV footage never shows whether the money came out of the ATM or not. The appellant had no role in the whole transaction. The ATM did not belong to the appellant. Neither any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, nor there is any negligence on the part of the appellant.
9. In the oral submission, the learned counsel for the appellant-Punjab National Bank submitted that there is no relevance of video footage of CCTV camera, as in ATM the camera is fixed only on the face of the 5 person using ATM machine and not on the keys of ATM and delivery window.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Punjab National Bank has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Chenaram vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Anr.; II (2016) CPJ 613 (NC). In the said case, the Hon'ble National Commission has held that complainant was having a saving bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce. When the complainant used his ATM card at the ATM of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Krishi Mandi Road, near Chungi Chowk, Merdata City, District Nagaur, he found that there was a balance of only Rs. 10/- in his account. No transaction was done from the ATM of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. But in the instant case, the fact is that the complainant is having saving bank account with the opposite party No. 1-State Bank of India. When the complainant has used his ATM card in the ATM of Punjab National Bank, the transaction of Rs. 10,000/- was shown successful. So we cannot say that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the Punjab National Bank-opposite party No.
2. So the citation relied by the Punjab National Bank-opposite party, is not applicable in the instant case.
11. After perusal of all the papers, we do not find any cash reconciliation report as well as JP Log. It is not denied that on 21.10.2013, the respondent No. 1-complainant has operated the ATM machine. The only dispute is either the respondent No. 1-complaiannt has received the cash from the said ATM or not? The appellants-State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank have stated that during investigation, no excess cash was found in the ATM. There is no cash reconciliation report as well as JP Log on record which proves that the investigation was done by the State Bank of India as well as Punjab National Bank.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the State Bank of India as well as Punjab National Bank failed to prove 6 that the respondent No. 1-complainant has received the cash from the ATM machine.
13. The District Forum has directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant by both the Banks. But in the case at hand, the ATM machine was used of the Punjab National Bank and because of the fault of ATM machine, the amount was shown withdrawn and State Bank of India has no role in the said transaction of ATM. Only the complainant was having a saving bank account in the State Bank of India. The liability, if any, is of Punjab National Bank, therefore, we allow First Appeal No. 218 of 2014 of State Bank of India and set aside the part of the order impugned passed against the State Bank of India. So far as the First Appeal No. 196 of 2014 filed by the Punjab National Bank, is concerned, we feel that the District Forum has levied compensation of Rs. 10,000/- without any basis and no reasons have been shown. Therefore, we partly set aside the order of imposing compensation on the Banks (State Bank of India & Punjab National Bank) and we direct Punjab National Bank-appellant-opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent No. 1-complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of transaction, i.e. 21.10.2013 and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of order. Thus, the appeal filed by the Punjab National Bank-opposite party No. 2 succeeds partly and appeal filed by the State Bank of India-opposite party No. 1 is fit to be allowed and the order impugned is to be modified accordingly.
14. For the reasons aforesaid, First Appeal No. 196 of 2014 filed by the Punjab National Bank is partly allowed and First Appeal No. 218 of 2014 passed by the State Bank of India is allowed. Judgment and order impugned dated 21.08.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 479 of 2013 is modified and the appellant-Punjab National Bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent 7 No. 1-complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of transaction, i.e. 21.10.2013 and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of order. No order as to costs. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant-opposite party No. 1-State Bank of India in First Appeal No. 218 of 2014 be released in favour of the appellant-State Bank of India.
15. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 218 of 2014.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)