West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/80/2016

Golam Imam Sahid, S/o Lt. Abdus Salam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) Bank of Baroda, - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr. Achary

13 Dec 2018

ORDER

The case of the complainant Golam Imam Sahid in brief is that the complainant is an S.B A/C holder being No.-30030100000397 under the O.P No.1.  That the account is a salary account of the complainant, who is a non-teaching staff of a school namely C. M. S Vidya Mandir, sar in the Dist. - Burdwan.  That the complainant is also an ATM Card holder of the O.P No.1 being Card No. 402985028674.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant had been to the ATM shop of the O.P No. 2 and 3 in order to get money through ATM, but after inserting the card the complainant had not get  money for every time.  The money/any currency note (I.N.R) as per requisition was not come out from the ATM showing ‘Insufficient Fund’.  That the complainant had got no money in spite of that the amount deducted/debited.

            It is also further case of the complainant that the complainant lodged complaint before the Bank of Baroda and also before the I.C Bolpur, P.S on 17/12/2015 informing pros and cons of the facts.  That the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda sent a letter dated 24/12/2015 addressing the Chief Manager, Bolpur Branch stating the aforesaid facts inter alia and asked for video footage of the transaction before the Chief Manager, Bolpur Branch.  That the opposite party No. 2 and also No. 3 did not take any step to supply the video footage to the opposite party No. 1 as per their request.  That the complainant every time use the ATM Card himself but got no money.  That the complainant is entitled to get the amount from opposite party as he gets no money either from the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 & 3.

            It is the next case of the complainant that for proper adjudication of the instant case CCTV footage for the aforesaid ATM shop and opening balance and closing balance of ATM account on the aforesaid date in the respective Bank are necessary.  But the opposite party Bank neither supplied the CCTV footage nor refund the amount so deducted from the S.B account of the complainant although he got no money from his account.

Hence this case for directing the O.Ps to pay Rs. 17,091.20/-with 12% interest P/A since 30.11.2015 to the complainant with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

O.P No.1 Bank of Baroda has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complainant contending inter alia the case is not maintainable and complainant has no cause of action to bring this case.

It is the specific case of the O.P No.1 Mr. Golam Imam Sahid having S/B A/C  No. 39930100000397

  

lodged complaint to the Bank of Baroda, Bolpur Branch for non-receiving of Rs.13,000/- on 30.11.2015 and Rs.4000/- on 01.12.2015.  After receiving said complaint, the Branch Manager, immediately took action by lodging complaint in on line portal on taking-up the matter with the acquiring Bank through NFS and it was informed that, above transactions were successful and the customer received the amount.  So, the amount cannot be reversed.  That the complainant has said in his complaint letter dated 02.12.2015 that, all transactions have been taken place at ATM of State Bank of India but, the report collected from their end shows that, those transactions were taken place at ATM of AXIS Bank, Bank of India and Indusind Bank.  That, from the customer’s statement, it reflects that, he is not sure from which Bank’s ATM, he has withdrawn money.  That, O.P No. 1 of this case, has demanded Video-clips of those transactions through NFS but, till date not received the same.       

The O.P No. 1 in their WV claimed that there was no deficiency in their part and case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            O.P No. 2 Axis Bank has contested the case without the filing any written version.

O.P No. 3 State Bank of India  Bank of has contest the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complainant contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable and complainant has no cause of action to bring this case.

It is the further case of the O.P No. 3 that the O.P No. 1 Bank of Baroda, Bolpur Branch duly informed the customer/complainant Golam Imam Sahid regarding transaction from ATM/SBI Bolpur Branch on 01/12/2015 for Rs. 4000/- (vide transaction ID which is incomplete) and they was also informed that the claim was sent to SBI ATM In-Change and the same was represented by State Bank of India stating that the transaction was successful and as such the State Bank of India has nothing to do with which should be incorporated to Kolkata through Bank of Baroda as the account of the complainant is of Bank of Baroda and if any claim is being made the same shall be done by Bank of Baroda.  So, in view of the facts and circumstances the question of negligence and deficiency in service by the answering O.P No. 3 does not arise at all. 

Ultimately the O.P No. 3 prayed for dismissed of the case.  

Point for determination.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Golam Imam Sahid has examined himself as P.W.1 and he was cross examined by O.Ps. Some documents have been submitted by him.

O.Ps has not adduced any oral documents but O.P No.1 has filed some documents.

Argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of the both parties has been heard.

Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant has a Bank account in OP No 1 Bank of Baroda.

So, the complainant is consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act.

Point No.2:- O.Ps No.2 have Branch Office within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 27,091.20/- which is far less than maximum limit of the

 

                                                                                                                                            

pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.  So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            The complainant in his complains and evidence stated that he is an S.B A/C holder being No.-30030100000397 under the O.P No.1.  That the account is a salary account of the complainant, who is a non-teaching staff of a school namely C. M. S Vidya Mandir, sar in the Dist. - Burdwan.  That the complainant is also an ATM Card holder of the O.P No.1 being Card No. 402985028674.

            Copy of the passbook shows the SBI Account No.30030100000397 stands in the name of the complainant.

In his evidence the complainant further stated he had been to ATM Shop of the O.P No. 2 and 3 in order to get money through ATM, but after inserting the card the complainant had not get  money for every time.  The money/any currency note (I.N.R) as per requisition was not come out from the ATM showing ‘Insufficient Fund’.  That the complainant had got no money in spite of that the amount deducted/debited.

In evidence he further he lodged a complaint before the Bank of Baroda and also before the I.C Bolpur, P.S on 17/12/2015 informing pros and cons of the facts.  That the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda sent a letter dated 24/12/2015 addressing the Chief Manager, Bolpur Branch stating the aforesaid facts inter alia and asked for video footage of the transaction before the Chief Manager, Bolpur Branch.  That the opposite party No. 2 and also No. 3 did not take any step to supply the video footage to the opposite party No. 1 as per their request.  That the complainant every time use the ATM Card himself but got no money.    We find for the statement of Band Account 30.11.2015 the complainant withdrawn Rs 1022/- each by three attempts and Rs.10,022/- by another attempt and Rs. 4000/- on 01.12.2015. Totaling amount Rs.17088/-.

            It is the case of the complainant that practically he had not received any money from ATM Counter rather receipts come out showing insufficient fund.

Copy of the ATM slip issued by Indusind Bank shows that on 01.12.015 that the complainant has not got any money from ATM counter due to insufficient fund. 

We find that in the present case the complainant in his evidence by filing affidavit stated that he had been to the ATM shops of OP. No 2 and 3 to get money through ATM, and after inserting card he get no money. But as per requisition money/currency (INR) was not come out from the ATM and showed insufficient fund.  That in spite of no transaction every time requisition amount debited from his account.

We find that there is no such cross-examinon on behalf of the OP. No. 1 Baroda Bank challenging said evidence of the complainant and no suggestion was given to him that actually all such amounts had been received by him from ATM counter.

Copy of the GDE No.953 dt.17.12.2015 of Bolpur P.S. shows the complainant lodged GD alleging that by inserting card at ATM counter of SBI Bolpur on 30.11.2015 he tried to withdraw Rs.1022, 1022/-, 1022/- and Rs. 10,022/- and on 01.12.2015 Rs. 4000/- but each time he received no money and received massage insufficient fund.

We find OP. No. 3 SBI in their written argument claimed that from EPI log report and other scientific process report they found the complainant had got his money and no such adverse report was found.

 

                                                                                                                                      

But no such EPI report or other scientific process report is forth coming before the forum.

We find that it is the specific that complainant that for proper adjudication of the instant case CCTV footage for the aforesaid ATM shop and opening balance and closing balance of ATM account on the aforesaid date in the respective Bank are necessary.  But the opposite party Bank neither supplied the CCTV footage nor refund the amount so deducted from the S.B account of the complainant although he got no money from his account.

It appears for the letter dt.24.12.2015 sent by the OP. No. 1 to the Chief Manager SBI, Bolpur Branch that OP No. 1 Bank requested for supplying video footage of disputed transaction.

Copy of the letter dt.11.02.2016 sent by Bob cards to asc. nfs @ sbi co. in. shows that again CCTV footage was claimed.

Evidently no video footage is forth coming in this case.

During hearing the argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant submitted a ruling reported in 2015(III)CPJ135(NC) where in a case of fraudulent withdrawal, copy of CCTV footage was not made available to the complainant by Bank.  Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that the bank was deficient in rendering service to the complainant by not making available copy of CCTV footage.

Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant submitted another ruling reported in 2013 (IV) CPJ 249 (NC).  Where money was withdrawn through ATM machine, amount was not disbursed but debited from the account.  Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that it was deficiency.

He cited another ruling reported 2015 (II) CPJ (CN) 17 TN).  Whether in a case of alleged fraudulent withdrawn of money thorough ATM money, Hon’ble State Commission pleased to hold that the Bank neither explained discrepancies in entries which are conflicting to each other nor proved that the complainant has actually withdrawn amounts, it amounts to deficiency in service and compensation was awarded to the Complainant.

Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on records and relying up on the      rulings cited above we are constrained to hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case of deficiency in since by OP No. 1 Bank of Baroda as they have not refunded amount of Rs. 17, 088/- illegally deducted by them.

But we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 2 & 3 and the case is liable to be dismissed against them.

Thus both points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Complaint is sufficient stamped.   

Hence,

O R D E R E D

 

that C.F case No. 80/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P No.1 with cost  of Rs. 2000/- and dismissed on contest against O.P No.2  and 3 without any cost.

The O.Ps No. 1 Bank of Baroda is directed to pay Rs. 17,088/- p. with 8% interest P/A from 30.11.2015 till realization.  Complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5000/- as compensation from OP No. 1.

All such payments shall be made within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.