Date of filing:-04/04/2018. Date of Order:-24/04/2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 33 of 2018.
Smt. Kanti Sahu, W/o. Shyam Sundar Gartia, aged about 48 years, Occupation. Teacher, R/o. Kamgaon, Ps/Tahasil. Bhatli, Dist. Bargarh.
Complainant.
V e r s u s
- The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, At/Po/Ps. Bhatli, Dist. Bargarh.
- Branch Manager, ATM Incharge, SBI, Main Branch, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri Mahendra Sahu, Advocate and Associates.
For the Opposite Party No.1 :- :- Sri Ashwini Kumar Dash and Associates.
For the Opposite Party No.2:- :- Sri Manoj Kumar Satpathy, Advocate and Associates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.24/04/2023. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant wants to withdraw money from her account through SBI ATM near Ganesh Rice Mill, Bargarh being maintaining by Opposite Party 2 and accordingly the Complainant withdraw twice of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only each, but one time released the money of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only and later on message come to her mobile about the deduction of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only as Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only twice. The Complainant immediately checked the passbook and knew that Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only has been deducted from her account. The Complainant immediately made a Complaint before Opposite Party No.1 under whom she has an account bearing A/c No. 04960100009418. The Complainant filed this case before this Commission for deficiency in service of the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 as they were negligent in performance of their duties.
- The case of the Opposite Parties is that both Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 filed their version. Opposite Party No.1 submitted in its version that the Complainant lodged a claim that on 26/11/2017 an amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only has been debited from his account which she has not received from the SBI ATM. The Complaint was registered vide claim ID No. 171200550 being transaction No. 733009022928 and it was send for proper inquiry and adjudication the ATM authority, for reconciliation. After enquiry the claim of the Complainant was rejected by the Authority on 05/12/2017 as the alleged transaction was successful and the Complainant has received the alleged money of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only vide transaction No. 733009022928 on 26/11/2017 from the said ATM. Accordingly it was informed to the Complainant. Second time when the Complainant gave a written application on dated 14/12/2017, the Opposite Party No.2 again lodged the pre Arbitration Complain through mail wit NFS-CELL Mumbai Treasury Branch, Who is the authority to deal with the matter. But the second Complaint was also rejected on 13/01/2017 on the same ground that the Complainant has received the alleged money through the said disputed transaction, which was successful. The said rejection of second Complaint of the Complainant was also duely communicated to her on 17/01/2018. On dated 25/01/2018 the Complainant again lodged the Complaint for arbitration by depositing the arbitration fees of Rs. 590/-(Rupees five hundred ninety)only and the same was forwarded by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Authority on the very day. The matter was placed for adjudication before the Arbitration penal under the chairmanship of Mr. Abhaya Parekh and four other members, who have decided the matter and held that the alleged disputed transaction of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only was successful and the claimant has received the amount. There after the Opposite party No.1 duely informed the Complainant the decision of the Arbitration panel. The Opposite Party No.1 has performed his duty sincerely and promptly, as per the Complaint of the Complainant. Hence there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Part No.1. Opposite Party No.2 also denied all allegation made by the Complainant and submitted that there is no any deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.2.
- Perused the records and it reveals that there is no any deficiency found on the part of the Opposite Parties as the Opposite Party No.1 performed all the duties perfectly. As per account statement the Complainant has withdrawn twice for 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only each time vide TXN No. 7155 and TXN No. 7156. The response code in each transaction is 000. Response code 000 means transaction successful. When the transaction is successful the Complainant can not raise question of deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly the complaint case is dismissed and the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.
Order pronounced in open court on this 24th day of April 2023.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Smt. Anju Agrawal ) ( Jigeesha Mishra )
Dt.24/04/2023 Dt.24/04/2023
M e m b e r (w) P r e s i d e n t.
