ORDER

Complaint under  Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

          The complainant was having his Saving Account with OP no. 3.  It is alleged by the complainant that on 11.12.2011, he was in need of some ash and as such he visited the ATM centre of OP No. 1 at about 4.00 p.m. situated at 13/34, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and swiped its ATM card for withdrawing a sum of Rs.10,000/- but no cash/currency notes came out from the ATM machine.  On the contrary, the transaction slip came out and reflected that a sum of Rs.10,000/- had been withdrawn.  The complainant immediately raised his objection/grievance to the Customer Care Grievance Cell of OP No. 3, they provided a Customer request number 205690403 to the complainant.

It is alleged by the complainant that when he visited the office of OP no. 1 and 3 and requested them to probe into the matter, they asked the complainant to wait for about a couple of weeks. It is further alleged by the complainant that it was always represented to by OP – 3 that it had taken up the matter with OP No. 1 and have sent e-mails to them, and their response is awaited.  It is further alleged by the Complainant that when he did no get any response from OP No. 1 and OP – 3 regarding his complaint, till mid of March, 2012, then he again visited the office of OP No. 1 and 3 he found that with both the OPs are trying to wash out their hands. The complainant had alleged that the OP s are hand in gloves with each other.  He therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

     The OPs have contested the complaint and have  denied any deficiency in service on their part.

     The OP banks had filed their W.S. Para No. 7 of the W.S. of OP No. 3 is relevant for the disposal of this complaint.

7. That there is no deficiency of the part of the answering OP .  It is an admitted case of the complainant that he swiped his ATM card of ICICI Bank Ltd. at the ATM Centre of Allahabad Band situated at Karol Bagh.  It is respectfully submitted that the answering OP cannot be faulted if there was any dispute that the money came out or not while  making the transaction of Rs.10,000/- as the transaction had happened at non – ICICI bank ATM,  Moreover, on receiving the complaint from the complainant, the answering OP co-ordinated with the acquiring bank (Allahabad Bank) for reversal of the disputed transaction of Rs.10,000/- but the acquiring had claimed that the transaction was successful and that the cash was in fact dispensed with.  The acquiring bank denied the request of reversal of the answering OP and hence there is nothing which the answering OP can do.  As the acquiring bank has refused to reverse the amount, the answering OP cannot be held liable at all.  Though as per the information made available by the acquiring bank to the answering OP, the transaction was successful, but in case there is still any dispute, only the acquiring bank (Allahabad Bank) can be held liable for the same.

     OP -1 has filed a separate W.S. denying any deficiency in service.  The parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.

     We have heard arguments advance at bar and have perused the record.

     The counsel for the OP – 1 & 2 has contended that bank which issues the ATM Card to the Customer is solely liable to compensate its customer even if the customers is unable to withdraw the money from an ATM Machine.  

     The counsel for OP No. 3 has contended that after receiving the complaint the bank had co-ordinated with OP No. 1 for the reversal of the entry for a sum of  Rs.10,000/- but OP No. 1  had stated that the transaction was successful and a sum of Rs.10,000/- in cash was actually dispensed.  The counsel for the OP no. 1 has also placed on record Switch Report, Jp log Report which clearly shows that the transaction was successful  and the customer had actually been dispensed with the amount of Rs.10,000/-

     The counsel for the Complainant had alleged that the OP s have denied the claim of the complainant only on the basis of transaction report of OP no. 1 & 2 without providing any CCTV footage.

               We have considered the contents of the Ld. Counsel of the complainant.

          The question for our consideration is as to whether he can hold the bank deficient in service in not providing CCTV footage.  This question was answered in the negative by the National Commission in a case reported as State Bank of India v/s K K Bhalla R.P. No. 3182/08.  The Hon’ble Commission had  observed as under:-

Despite all these facts, learned for a below ruled in favour of the respondent only on the grounds that the CCTV footage which was required in respect of ATM transactions was not made available and this was a major lapse on the part of the Petitioner/Bank since it breached the security and safety in ATMs and was thus, clearly a deficiency in service.  We are not convinced by this reasoning of either the District Forum or the State Commission, particularly in view of the fact that merely because the CCTV  was not working on those dates and its footage was thus not available, does not mean that the money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using the ATM card and the PIN number.  In case the ATM Card had been stolen or the PIN number had become known to persons other than ATM card holder then the CCTV coverage could have helped in identifying the persons who had fraudulently used the card.  In the instant case it is not disputed that the ATM card or PIN remained in the self-custody/knowledge of the Respondent.  In view of elaborate procedure evolved by the Petitioner/Bank to ensure that without the ATM card and knowledge of the PIN number, it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorized person from an ATM, we find it difficult to accept the Respondent’s contention.  No doubt there have been cases of fraudulent withdrawals as stated by the State commission but the circumstances of those cases may not be the same as in this case and in all probability, these fraudulent withdrawals occurred either because the ATM Card or the PIN number fell in wrong hands.  Keeping in view these facts, we have no option but to set aside the orders of the Ld. For a below and accept the revision petition which is allowed with no order as to costs.

     As already stated above, an enquiry was conducted by OP – 3 bank in respect of the transaction in question and it had came to the conclusion on the basis of the switch report and Jp. Log provided by OP -1 bank that the transaction was successful.  An affidavit to this effect has been filed on behalf of the OP No. 3.

     In view of the affidavit filed on record on behalf of OP No. 3 we are unable to hold any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complaint may have re-course to any other remedy before the Civil Court/Forum.  With these observations, present complaint is dismissed.

     File be consigned to R/R.

          Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

 File be consigned to record room.

          Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................