Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The case in brief of the Complainant is that the Complainant an employee of Indian Air Force and presently posted at Air Force Station Bagdogra, Darjeeling and he is also a permanent resident of Baraut, Baghpat, and Uttar Pradesh. While he was on leave in the month of February 2009 at his residence Baraut, he used ATM of PNB, Baraut on 19.02.2009 for withdrawal of Rs.14,000/-. But in spite of using the said ATM card he did not get any money from the said ATM machine but got transaction slip in which it was shown as withdrawal of Rs.14,000/-. Immediately he made a written complaint to the Branch Manager, PNB, Baraut as money was not received by using the ATM Card. It has been instructed for receiving the money after reconciles from Bombay within 42 days. Subsequently on 28.02.2009 he made another complaint through Fax to SBI, Bagdogra and ATM office, PNB, Delhi. Again and again the Complainant made several correspondences and lastly he made correspondence with the Senior Manager, ATM, Delhi on 05.05.2009. The Complainant has an account being no- 30424224336 and also holding an ATM card of SBI, Bagdogra.

Before the Forum below the Appellantthe OP-1 contested the complaint by filing written version wherein the OP-1 has denied all the allegations as made by the Complainant. In the said version the OP-1 has stated that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum below due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. According to the view of the OP-1 the cause of action arose at Baraut, UP, not within the jurisdiction of Siliguri. It has been further alleged by the OP-1 that the transaction slip has been issued in favour of the Complainant showing that transaction has already been completed even then the Complainant made such allegation, which has no basis at all. Further submission of the OP-1 is that the Complainant punched the savings bank ATM card with PNB ATM machine at Baraut and the report submitted by PNB with regard to the Complainant lodged by the Complainant that operation by using the said ATM card of the SBI ATM card was successful on 19.02.2009. As a result the OP-1-Appellant has no responsibility in this context. Since money has already been withdrawn by punching the ATM card at PNB ATM machine, Baraut, the claim as made by the Complainant is not tenable and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

We have noticed that the sole contentions of the Complainant is that during his leave in the month of February 2009 he used ATM card through the machine of PNB on 19.02.2009 for a sum of Rs.14,000/-, but he did not receive any money there form on the basis of the said transactions and the matter was brought to the notice of the OP-2 by issuance of the written complaint followed by several correspondences made not only before the OP-2 but also the OP-1 and it was reported that the transaction was completed by successful operation. The Complainant in support of his argument filed Xerox copy of the savings bank passbook from where it is evident that the Complainant has a savings bank account bearing no. 30424224336 at SBI, Bagdogra. The copy of the letter-dated 19.02.2009 issued by the Complainant reveals that when the Complainant did not receive the said money by way of punching the ATM card at Baraut through PNB ATM machine, he lodged a complaint on the said day to the Manager, PNB Baraut, who received the said complaint by putting official seal and signature. The Complainant lodged another complaint to the PNB ATM Baraut and the same was also acknowledged by the OP-2. The Complainant also lodged complaint on 20.02.2009 to SBI, Bagdogra and the same was received by the OP-1. From these documents it is reveal to us that a series of application were made by the Complainant for Redressal of his grievance in respect of non receipt and non withdrawal of the money through the ATM machine, Baraut, PNB by using his valid ATM Card. But unfortunately it has been shown as withdrawal of Rs.14,000/- despite not receiving the money from the said ATM. The Complainant laid evidence by way of affidavit in chief and he was cross examined by OP-1 by putting specific questions and the same was replied by the Complainant by way of affidavit in reply. In this context the Complainant has specifically stated that he operated the ATM machine on 19.2.2009 for withdrawal of Rs.14,000/- but no money was received there form and the balance was confirmed as Rs. 5,104/-. The Complainant has further replied that he withdrew a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from ICICI bank ATM, Baraut when previous transaction became failed with PNB. He has categorically replied that it was not within his knowledge regarding any fault in the machine in question but when he was in need of money, he did not get the same and was compelled to use the ATM card through ICICI bank ATM. In spite of repeated requests with the OP-1 & 2 he did get any positive response from the OPs especially from the OP-2 as the OP-1 intimated him that the operation was successfully completed.

From the statement of account relating to the savings bank account it is evident that transaction were made and on 19.2.2009 a sum of Rs.14,000/- has been withdrawn but neither the OP-1 nor the OP-2 furnished any document to show that despite having possession of transaction register relating to the date of occurrence on 19.02.2009, the OPs did not submit any document that how much money was kept in the ATM machine of PNB , Baraut were clearance and how much money remains unused through the said ATM machine, Baraut PNB . In this context the Forum below has rightly held that the bank is the public utility service and when ATM machine is running under the control of the concerned bank originated from the main office at Mumbai or Delhi obviously they have to maintain separate register in this regard and if the said register dated 19.02.2009 maintained and controlled by the OP-2 be placed for appreciation the truth would come out whether actually the amount in quest6ion was withdrawn by the Complainant after punching his ATM card and if not function properly due to the fault of the machinery or any kind of reason thereof , there must be report to maintain by the PNB ATM machine, Baraut and Delhi Division or Mumbai Division. It is pertinent to mention that the OP-2 did not come forward to contest the case denying the allegation as made by the Complainant. We have also noticed that the OP-2 did not feel to make any reply against the Complainant as raised by the Complainant on the date of occurrence and even on receiving several correspondence from the end of Complainant, the OP-2 did not bother to make any enquiry and to report about the fate of transaction as alleged by the Complainant.