DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No.24 of 2010
Dillip Kumar Bishi, aged about 40 years, S/o. Late Biswanath Bishi, R/o. village Kandagad, P.O. Bairasar, P.S. Balangir, District – Balangir, at present working under Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Sonepur, P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sonepur Main Branch, At/P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bolangir Branch(46), At/P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Bolangir
3. Chief Controller, ATM Project Department, State Bank of India, State Bank Global IT Centre, Wing – B, Ground Floor, Sector 11, CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai – 400614.
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri S.P.Mishra
Advocate for the O.P. …………. Sri G.S. Panda
Present
1. Sri U.N.Purohit, President
2. Sri H.Padhan Member
Date of Filing Dt.27.09.2010
Date of Hearing Dt.06.01.2023
Date of Order Dt.25.01.2023
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri U.N.Purohit, P.
The complainant files complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps.
Brief fact of the complainant is that he is an account holder of S.B.I. Main Branch Sonepur having A/c. No.11341900127. On 25.06.2010 the complainant had been to ATM located near S.B.I. Main Branch Sonepur – ATM Sl. No.6220180004600220331 at about 4.00 P.M. for withdrawal an amount of Rs.16,000/- to meet the medical expenses. Due to system failure after a while neither the money nor any advise slip came from the system. After waiting a while,
-: 2 :-
when the said machine remain as it was, the complainant operated the right side ATM and surprised on seeing the balance slip where he found that an amount of Rs.16,000/- has been reflected as debited from, his account and the balance remain Rs.1893.48. On the very moment the complainant went to the Branch and found the incharge of ATM was on leave and on 28.06.2010 with his grievance the complainant lodged complain before the incharge of ATM. On receiving the complaint from complainant without proper inquiry the Branch Manager O.P. No.1 with a letter intimated the complainant that the alleged amount has already been dispensed from the ATM vide TXN No.9923 dt.25.06.2010. The ATM was continued to be defunct, non functional for a period of more than 15 days, the letter of the O.P. No.1 throwing cloud of doubt about dispensation of amount.
The O.Ps. without any proper enquiry, following proper procedure receiving complaint by phone and physically table his grievance before O.P. No.2 is amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant seek relief of the amount Rs.16,000/- which has been debited from his account, Rs.50,000/- towards mental tension and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.Ps. filed their version claiming that the complainant is not a consumer, the commission has lack jurisdiction, no cause of action, no deficiency in providing service by the O.P. on receiving complaint, the O.P. properly enquire and intimated to the complainant by Regd. Post. The complaint petition is misleading and not correct. For easy withdrawal of the account holder the S.B.I. has installed two number of ATM Machine adjacent to Main Branch, S.B.I., Sonepur. On 25.06.2010 at 4.34 P.M. one ATM Card bearing No.6220180004600220331 was inserted in Site-II ATM and after entering proper number and code number which is assigned in respect of A/c. number 00000011341900127 the complainant had entered the cash withdrawal from the above account and after entering the amount money was dispense from the ATM and same had been rightly debited from the account. Printed Balance Slip was also come out from the ATM Machine Site-II showing the
-: 3 :-
response as OK. The Site-II machine was neither defunct nor it was hanged at the time of operation of the above ATM. To substantiate such fact from the slip which is kept with the Branch shows that the Site-II ATM Machine was neither hang nor defunct. Prior to the operation of the above mentioned ATM Card at 4.31 PM another ATM Card was operated and the same was operated successfully and after operation of the above mentioned ATM Card i.e. the ATM of the complainant another card was operated at about 4.43 PM which was operate successfully, hence there is no question of hang or defunct of the ATM Machine of Site-II. The ATM Machine and the amount which has been dispense from the ATM Machine was correct.
There is no post of ATM Incharge in the SBI Sonepur, the complainant had never reported or complaint regarding his allegation on the same day to any official of the Bank. All the banking transaction is under the administrative control of the Chief Manager and the complainant had never meet either to the Chief Manager or to any official of the Bank. On 28.06.2010 the complainant had intimated the allegation to the Branch Manager by lodging written report and in accordance to his complaint the B.M. had enquired about the matter from the Head Office Mumbai and after receiving information from the Head Office and on proper verification he has intimated the matter to the complainant by Regd. Post that money has been dispensed from the ATM vide TXN No.9923 dt.25.06.2010.
Before and after operation of the ATM card of the complainant two ATM Card was operated successfully. Hence there is no question of defunct or non-functional for a period of 15 days. The SBI, Sonepur after proper inquiry and verification of ej log of ATM ID No.S1CN001108502 have found that money has been dispense from the ATM Machine.
Hence there is no question of cloud of doubt on the part of proper service by the O.P. No.1 rather O.P. No.1 has enquired the matter from the Head Office Mumbai where the ATM server are maintained and have properly verified the
-: 4 :-
transaction made by the complainant on the material point of time. The O.P. relies with advise slip of ATM Side – II from 4.31 PM to 4.43 PM on 25.06.2010, letter of Head Office, Mumbai.
On going through the complaint petition and version of the O.Ps. it is required to answer the following questions :-
i). Whether the complainant is a Consumer ?
ii). Whether there is any cause of action and the commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?
iii). Whether there is any RBI guide line which is has been violated by the O.Ps. and thereby any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
iv). Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief ?
Question No.1
On going through the complaint, version of O.Ps. documents filed by the complainant and the affidavit evidence of the complainant it is found that the complainant is an account holder of SB A/c. No.11341900127 in the S.B.I., Sonepur Main Branch. The complainant is a depositors and holder of savings of A/c. to maintain his financial requirement is a consumer and the O.Ps. are the service provider for the banking service by taking required charges as per guide line of RBI. Hence the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps. and answered accordingly.
Question No.2
From the documents and pleadings it is clear that the complainant make transaction for withdrawal of money from the ATM on 25.06.2010 and the complainant by the time of cause of action was being resident of Sonepur District, the O.Ps. are carrying business in the District. So we find that the cause of action arose as on 25.06.2010 as because the O.Ps. did not comply to the complaint/grievance of the complainant on 28.06.2010. This commission has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
-: 5 :-
Question No.3
The SBI is regulated by the regulatory authority RBI as such O.P. is binding on the guideline issued by RBI. On the other hand the complainant in evidence filed by Affidavit and referring the RBI circular No.DPSS-PD-NO-2633/02.10.2010-11 May 2011 which shows that in para 2(a) the time limit for resolution for customer complaint by the issuing bank shall stand reduce from 12 working days to 7 working days from the date of receipt of customer complaint. Accordingly failure to credit the customer’s account within 7 working days of receipt of complaint shall entail payment of compensation to the customer @ Rs.100/- per day by the issuing bank. In this case it is admitted the complainant has complained to the Branch Manager on 28.06.2010 about debit of Rs.16,000/- from his account from the ATM Machine Site – II and he has not received the same and for quick action of recover the aforesaid amount he has lodged complaint to the authority. The complainant has filed ATM Slip dt.25.06.2010 relating to TXN No.6009 at the time 16.39 and another Slip at 16.40. The 16.39 Slip shows sorry unable to process relating to TXN No.6009 and TXN No.6010 at 16.40 the Mini Statement shows that ATM withdrawal on 25.06.2010 Rs.16,000/-. So the letter of the SB.I., Sonepur and the report of successful transaction is nothing but it is a false and imaginary report and the O.Ps. to avoid the liabilities has created those documents and make false claim of making inquiry from the Head Office Mumbai. Further more the report of the SBI Sonepur is related to another transaction ID and the reports of successful transaction refers to TXN No.9923 of 25.06.2010. The O.P. has not filed any documents as relied on their version i.e. advise slip of ATM Side – II from 4.31 PM to 4.43 PM on 25.06.2010, letter of Head Office, Mumbai. So there is deficiency in service by the O.Ps. and O.Ps. have violated the guideline issued by RBI as such they are liable to the relief claimed by the complainant.
-: 6 :-
Hence we conclude and directed the O.Ps. to pay Rs.16000/- to the complainant to the amount which has been debited from his account and as the case is lingering since 2010 and the RBI guideline related to of the year 2010-11, application of the same is prospective but the principle is applicable to this case and not the penal amount, so it is fit to compensate 10% interest of the debited amount of the complainant from the date of deduction i.e. 25.06.2010 till the date of realization. Further the O.Ps. are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- will meet the compensation and Rs.4000/- towards the cost of litigation. The O.Ps. are directed to comply the order within two months from the date of order. Complaint is partly allowed.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Dated the 25th day of January 2023
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Padhan Sri U.N.Purohit
Member President
Dt.25.01.2023 Dt.25.01.2023
