DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __131_ _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING :_03.10.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 31.8.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Adhir Chandra Halder, Vill.+P.O –Krishna Chandrapur, P.S Mathurapur, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743354.
O.P/O.Ps : 1.U.C.O Bank, Baruipur Branch, P.O & P.S- Baruipur, Kolkata-144.
2.S.B.I, Joynagar Mojilpur Branch, P.O Joynagar, South24-Parganas, Pin-743337.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant has maintained a Savings Bank Account bearing no.01990100022236 with the UCO Bank i.e O.P-1 with ATM facility. On 30.6.2017 at about 10.29 a.m, he went to the ATM machine of SBI (O.P-2) at Joynagar Mojilpur to withdraw a sum of Rs.5000/-. He tried twice to withdraw the sum but could not withdraw as the machine declined to deliver the money. ATM slip obtained from the said machine showed the remark, “Sorry, unable to process”. But, O.P-1 deducted Rs.5000/- from the account of the complainant. Complainant requested O.P-1 to credit the said amount to his account, but his requests ended in fiasco. So, the instant case is filed by the complainant, praying for refund of Rs.5000/- and payment of compensation etc.
Service of notice has been made upon the O.P-2 ,but none has appeared and, therefore, the case is proceeded exparte against the O.P-2.
It is the O.P-1 who is contesting the case by filing written version of his statement, wherein it is contended inter alia that the account of the complainant is maintained with the Bank. According to O.P-1, they lodged complaint with the O.P-2 and O.P-2 instructed them to the effect that the complainant withdrew Rs.5000/- by using ATM Card from the ATM of O.P-2. So, Rs.5000/- was rightly debited from the account of the complainant by O.P-1 and the said amount has also been reimbursed to O.P-2. O.P-1 is not liable to make any payment to the complainant. It is only O.P-2 who may be made liable and the case should be dismissed against O.P-1.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for and if so, to what extent ?
EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT
Petition of complaint has been treated as evidence of the complainant along with the documents filed by him vide his petition dated 20.3.2018. Similarly, written version filed by O.P-1 is treated as his evidence vide petition dated 6.4.2018.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
Now to see whether the O.ps have made themselves guilty of deficiency in service by not crediting Rs.5000/- to the account of the complainant maintained with the O.P-1 ,Bank. It is the case of the complainant that he tried to withdraw Rs.5000/- from the ATM of O.P-2 on 30.6.2017. But he was not able to withdraw any money as the machine was unable to process. To prove it, the two ATM slips dated 30.6.2017 have been filed by the complainant before us. He has also filed the relevant portion of his passbook maintained with UCO Bank i.e O.P-1. The two ATM receipts are marked with reference no.718110020883 and 718110024288. On perusal of those two receipts, it is found that the complainant tried to withdraw money by ATM Card from ATM machine of SBI at Joynagar Mojilpur at 10.29 a.m and 10.31 a.m. But in both the cases, his attempt failed ; he could not withdraw any money from the ATM machine and this is for the reason that the ATM machine reported , “Sorry, unable to process”. The ATM receipts are documentary evidences and it is not possible for us to disbelieve these evidences. By these two ATM receipts, it is overwhelmingly proved that complainant could not withdraw any money from the SBI ATM machine on 30.6.2017 . But the passbook of the complainant, which is maintained with UCO Bank (O.P-1) shows that Rs.5000/- has been deducted from the account of the complainant on 30.6.2017 and such deduction bears the reference no.718110020883 ,which is the reference of the first transaction of the ATM attempted by the complainant. It has already been mentioned that no money has been siphoned by the ATM machine and, therefore, there arises no question of deduction of any money from the account of the complainant. Deduction of Rs.5000/- from the account of the complainant is proved to have been made improperly and such improper deduction of money from the account of the customer by the Bank is nothing but gross deficiency in service on the part of the Bank i.e O.P-1 with whom, the account of the complainant is maintained.
It has been contended in the written version filed by the O.P-1 Bank that they have reimbursed Rs.5000/- to O.P-2 and if any mistake is committed on withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant ,that is done not by them but by O.P-2. So, according to them, O.P-2 is liable to refund the amount to the complainant and they are not at all liable.
It is true that withdrawal of money from the SBI ATM is permissible by a customer having ATM issued by UCO Bank i.e O.P-1. It implies that there is a tie-up arrangement or agreement between UCO Bank and the SBI Bank and, therefore, the ATM Card of one Bank is permissible to be used in the ATM of another Bank.
Under such circumstances, both the banks will be severally and jointly liable for the loss suffered by the customer. The prime duty of the bank is to ensure safety and security of the money deposited with them by the customer and any kind of violation in such duty will incur liability on the part of both the banks. Regards being had to the established facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that both the banks are liable jointly and/or severally to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.5000/- ,which is unjustly and improperly debited from his account by the banks.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P-1 and exparte against O.P-2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by both the O.Ps to the complainant.
Both the banks are jointly and/or severally liable for payment to the complainant and they are directed to refund Rs.5000/- with usual banking interest since the date of debiting of the amount and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant, within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount, the refund amount and the amount of cost as referred to above will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
