Date of filing: 21/08/2019
Judgment date: 16/08/2023
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Sri Bipul Dutta Gupta alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OPs hereinafter) namely (1) Allahabad Bank and (2) Manager, State Bank of India.
Case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer of OP 1 having his savings bank account being A/c. no. 50033738403. In due course of business OP 1 offered the complainant ATM facilities and provided the ATM Card. On 28/02/2018 complainant went to ATM Kiosks (E-corner) of OP 2 to withdraw sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the savings bank account maintained by State Bank of India. But the complainant was astonished to find on the screen of the said ATM “Sorry the transaction cancelled”. So no transaction slip containing details was provided to the complainant but within a few minutes complainant received the message in his mobile phone that sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been debited from his account. Complainant immediately drew the attention of OP 2 who in turn advised the complainant to contact OP 1 for reversal of wrongful entry. As per the advise of OP 2 complainant immediately drew the attention of OP 1 and also lodged the complaint before the OP 1 on 28/02/2018 narrating the details of the said failed transaction with the prayer to credit Rs. 10,000/- in his savings bank account. But no response was given by the OP 1. However on 23/03/2018 OP 1 issued a letter stating that the withdrawal of money of Rs. 10,000/- was found to be successful as reported by OP 2. So the present complaint has been filed praying for directing the OP 1 to credit the sum of Rs. 10,000/- together with interest accrued for the period from 28/02/2018 to till realisation, to direct the OP 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- and also call for CCTV footage of alleged transaction and further any other relief the complainant is entitled to.
OP 2 only has contested the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegations contending inter-alia that the transaction made on 28/02/2018 at about 17.57 hrs. amounting Rs. 10,000/- was a successful transaction and after that complainant made another transaction at 17.59 hrs. amounting Rs. 10,000/- from the E-corner of the OP 2 which was also a successful transaction. So there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of OP and thus OP 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP 1 did not take any step in spite of service of notice and thus the case has been heard exparte against OP 1.
During the course of evidence, complainant filed examination in chief on affidavit followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto. However OP 2 did not take any step during the stage of OPs evidence and did not file examination in chief on affidavit. Even during the argument OP 2 did not take any step and thus the argument on behalf of the complainant was heard.
So the following points require to be determined:-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points being interrelated are taken up together for discussions.
In order to substantiate his claim, complainant has filed the letter written to OP 1 on 28/02/2018 and the letter dated 09/03/2018. He has also filed the letter issued by OP 1 dated 23/03/2018 stating that withdrawal of the money amounting to Rs. 10,000/- was found to be successful reported by the OP 2. Certain other documents such as transaction detail in the pass book on 28.02.2018, copy of complaint and letter written to Ombudsman dated 23/06/2018, and also the letter dated 05/04/2018 written to OP 2 demanding CCTV footage has been filed by the complainant.
In this case apparently complainant had gone to ATM of OP 2 on 28/02/2018 for withdrawing the sum of Rs. 10,000/- but according to him transaction failed and on the screen it showed “Sorry the transaction cancelled”. No document in this regard has been filed by the complainant. However according to complainant, no transaction slip containing such details was provided to the complainant. Be that as it may but since according to complainant he had drawn the attention of OP 2 for assistance immediately and thereafter he had also drawn the attention of OP 1, there ought to have some document to this effect but no such document is forthcoming before this commission. It is evident from the letters filed by the complainant that for the first time he made the complaint before the OP 1 only on 01/03/2018 i.e. after two days of the occurrence. Complaint ought to have taken immediate step to lodge the complaint if the said transaction in effect was cancelled and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was found already debited from his account, immediately on the same date.
OP 2 on the other hand has filed the transaction record to substantiate its contention that the transaction of Rs. 10,000/- in question was a successful transaction which is reproduced hereunder:-
“28/02/2018 17:56:22 TRANSACTION START
28/02/2018 17:56:25 CARD ACCEPTED GOOD:607117XXXXXX7018
28/02/2018 17:56:34 PIN ENTERED: 607117XXXXXX7018
28/02/2018 17:56:49 Amount entered 10000: 607117XXXXXX7018
28/02/2018 17:56:49 Transaction request [AB ]: 607117XXXXXX7018
28/02/2018 17:56:51 REPLY RECV [FID = 2]: 607117XXXXXX7018
28/02/2018 17:56:51 CASH DISPENSE: 607117XXXXXX7018
28/02/2018 17:56:58
CASH DISPENSER – STACKER STATUS CHANGED”
It further appears from the said transaction Data/Record that five notes of denomination of Rs. 2,000/- was dispensed.
So from the above mentioned data it is evident that the transaction of Rs. 10,000/- was successful and the same was withdrawn. Complainant sought to suggest that as the first transaction to withdraw the sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the ATM counter failed, the complainant was compelled to withdraw the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- from a separate ATM counter of the E-corner maintained by OP 2. It is further claimed by the complainant that it is irrational that a prudent person of sufficient knowledge would like to take pain to withdraw the sum of Rs. 20,000/- vide two alleged separate transaction when there is scope to withdraw the said sum by way of single operation.
So according to complainant because first transaction of Rs. 10,000/- failed, he was compelled to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- from the another ATM counter maintained by OP 2 suggesting thereby that if he really wanted Rs. 20,000/- than he could withdraw by way of a single operation and it was not required for him to go to another ATM counter. But in this context it may be pertinent to point out that it is evident from the letters filed in this case and the specific reply by the complainant to the questionnaire of OP that complainant had also withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- on the same day from a separate ATM Kiosk maintained by Axis Bank. It is specifically stated by the complainant that he had also gone to the Axis Bank counter of Behala Branch for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- through Debit Card of United Bank of India which was successful. So the complainant had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- from the E-corner maintained by OP 2 which was successful and also withdrawn further Rs. 10,000/- from Axis Bank ATM counter of Behala Branch. So the claim of the complainant that as because the transaction failed first time for the alleged reason of transaction cancelled stated in screen of the ATM, he was compelled to withdraw the said amount from another E-counter maintained by OP 2, is not true. In such a situation, not only there was delay in lodging the complaint with regard to alleged failed transaction but also considering the own case of complainant of subsequent two successful transaction of Rs. 10,000/- each from the ATM corner maintained by OP 2 and maintained by Axis Bank, the contention of OP 2 that the complainant has not come with clean hands, cannot be discarded. More so as the transaction data as highlighted above filed by OP 2 clearly shows that the transaction of Rs. 10,000/- on 28/02/2018 at 17.56 hrs. was successful. In such a situation present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence
ORDERED
CC/448/2019 is dismissed on contest against OP 2 and dismissed exparte against OP 1.
