RAJNEESH SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.2014, of learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, who are the functionaries of Punjab National Bank, has been dismissed, with the finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties. Appellant filed a complaint, under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in June, 2011, against the respondents alleging that he had a saving bank account No. 388900010053639 and that in the month of May 2010, he issued a cheque in favour of a person, which was returned with the endorsement that the account stood frozen. Appellant alleged that he had never been issued any show cause notice for freezing his account and that later on, he came to know that the account had been frozen on the basis of a complaint by a lady, that a sum of Rs. 68,600 had been illegally withdrawn by misusing her ATM card and the said amount of money had been credited in the aforesaid (frozen) account belonging to him.

(2.) Complaint was contested by the respondents, who stated that as per statement of account of appellant, Annexure RX -I, three transactions of credit of money in the account of the appellant, by use of ATM card, had taken place. All the three transactions took place on 15.4.2010 and against these transactions, two amounts of Rs. 25,000 each and one amount of Rs. 18,600 had been credited in the account of the appellant and on the same date two transactions of withdrawal from his account had also taken place. Against one transaction a sum of Rs. 15,000 was withdrawn and against the other, a sum of Rs. 10,000 had been withdrawn. It was alleged that a complaint addressed to the S.H.O., Police Station, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi by one Urmila Sardana was received by them on 28.4.2010, in which it was alleged that a sum of Rs. 68,600 had been illegally withdrawn against her ATM card No. 5126520015634061 on 15.4.2010, and that the aforesaid amount of money had been credited in the account of the appellant, bearing No. 388900010053639. Respondents alleged that it was on receipt of the aforesaid complaint of Urmila Sardana that the account of the appellant had been frozen.

(3.) Learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint, vide impugned order, holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.