Orissa

Cuttak

CC/08/2014

Rama Chandra Sarangi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistance General Manager,State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

N Patra

12 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                              C.C.No.8/2014

Rama Chandra Sarangi,

At:Jagannath Ballava(Tanti Sahi),

Cuttack-753001,P.S:Lalbag,

Town & Dist:Cuttack.                                                                          ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

 

1.        State Bank of India,Cuttack Branch,

Collectorate Compound,Cuttack(0059),

Represented by the Assistant General Manager,

SBI,Cuttack Branch,P.O:Chandinichowk,

P.S:Lalbag,Dist:Cuttack,PIN-753002.

 

2.       State Bank of India, represented by its Chairman,

State Bank Bhaban,Madame Cama Road,

Noriman Point,Mumbai-400021.

 

3.       State Bank of India, represented by its Chief General Manager,

State Bank Bhawan,Bhubaneswar-751001.

 

4.       Reserve Bank of India, represented through its Registrar,

Customer Service Department,Ist Floor,

Amar Building,Firoz Shah Mehta Road,Fort,Mumbai-400001.

 

5.       Inspector Incharge,Lalbag P.S,

Chandinichowk,Cuttack                                                         ....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    17.01.2014

Date of Order:  12.08.2022

 

For the complainant        :    Mr. Narasingha Patra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. No.1             :     Mr. P.V.Balakrishnan,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.4               :     Mr. G.Bihari Swain ,A/R.

For the O.P No.5               :      Self.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                              

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he being a Card Holder of ATM bearing No.6220180005900100289 in the S.B.I,Cuttack, 12.5.13 at 9.00 A.M  had gone to the Chandinichowk ATM counter in order to withdraw an amount of Rs.2000/-.   According to the complainant, there was no security guard deployed at the ATM counter when he had gone there and two strangers were inside the ATM counter then. As the complainant was in a hurry, he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.2000/- at about 9.25 A.M  that day, from the said ATM counter at Chandinichowk of Cuttack but at 9.35 A.M he had received one  SMS message that a sum of Rs.35,000/- has been withdrawn from his account.  He had verified the said message at ATM counter of Burundaban Complex nearer to his residential area and had found that the message sent to him was correct.  Then he had changed his PIN number, informed the matter in writing at the Lalbag Police Station of Cuttack and had submitted an application to the S.B.I,Cuttack Branch through one of his friend namely Basant Kumar Sethi as he had to leave for New Delhi regarding the health checkup of his wife.  On the same day at about 1 P.M he had lodged a complaint before the S.B.I, Debit Card through the Toll free number his complaint number which was registered as Complaint No.598573987 dt.12.5.2013.  It is further alleged by the complainant that ATM machine was technically defective but there was no indication of defect for which he could not complete the transaction.  On 14.5.13 the A.G.M, State Bank of India,Cuttack Branch had informed him that a sum of Rs.35,000/- has been withdrawn at Chandinichowk ATM Counter on 12.5.13 at 9.27 A.M by using the ATM card of the complainant and with the  PIN number of the complainant.  The complainant further has alleged that the said report of the AGM is without proper verification and the withdrawal of Rs.35,000/- was due to technical lapses of the ATM machines.  The complainant on his return from Delhi had submitted a fresh application at Lalbag P.S on 28.6.13.  On 2.7.13, the complainant had made a representation to the Chairman, SBI, Mumbai, with a copy to the Governor, R.B.I, Secretary, Financial Services, Ministry of Finance(Banking Division), Govt. of India and also to the C.G.M,S.B.I, Bhubaneswar in this regard.  The S.B.I,Cuttack Branch through their letter dt.24.7.13 had intimated the complainant that they had provided the CCTV footage to the Lalbag Police Station on 8.7.13 and to take up the matter with the police.  The complainant had approached the Banking Ombudsman at Bhubaneswar and had submitted the facts through his letter dt.3.9.13 seeking return of his money of Rs.35,000/- with usual interest.  On 15.11.13 the Banking Ombudsman had closed his complaint advising him to approach any other Grievance Forum in accordance with law.  The complainant suspects that the two strangers those who were present inside the said ATM Counter at Chandinichowk area might have taken away his money from the left side ATM machine which was a defective one.  It is further alleged by the complainant that neither the O.Ps nor the police authorities have investigated into the matter to locate the culprit by going through the CCTV footage.  It is for this, the complainant has filed this case seeking refund of his money to the tune of Rs.35,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and has further sought for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

  He has filed certain copies of documents in order to establish his case.

2.         On the other hand, out of the five O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.Ps No.2 & 3 were deleted vide order dt.8.5.17.  Thus, O.Ps No.1,4 & 5  have contested this case but all of them have filed their separate written versions.  As per the written version of O.P No.1, the case of the complainant is not maintainable as because the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.  O.P No.1 has refused about the allegation as made by the complainant regarding the fraudulent withdrawal of his money since because the card and PIN number both belong to the complainant which are most essential together  to be used for withdrawal of money from the ATM machine.  Thus, it is the submission of O.P No.1 through his written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

            O.P No.4 through his written version has stated that the allegation of the complainant is totally false, baseless and mischievous which is not maintainable.  O.P No.4 has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharishi Dayanand University Vrs. Sujit Kaur JT 210(7) SC 179.  Thus, according to the said judgment O.P No.4 while discharging its statutory functions should not be held liable here in this case.  Accordingly, it is prayed by O.P No.4 to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

            O.P No.5 through his written version has stated that being an IIC of the Lalbag Police Station he had properly investigated into the case after getting the FIR.  According to him the video of CCTV footage as obtained was shown to the complainant but it was not clearly visible.  After completing investigation, the I.O has submitted “FRT no clue” U/S-379 IPC vide F.F No.179.

            O.Ps No.1 & 4 have filed certain copies of documents to prove their stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments of all the three written versions as filed in this case on behalf of O.Ps 1, 4 & 5 respectively and also keeping in mind the contents of the complaint petition as filed by the complainant, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable.

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency on the part of O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issue No.ii.

            Issue no.2 being the most pertinent issue was taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Undoubtedly the complainant is a consumer having ATM facility from the O.P No.1.  It is also not in dispute that the O.P No.1 had enabled the complainant with ATM Card facility and thereby had provided the complainant with one ATM Card for enabling him to withdraw his money from his account from the ATM machine as and when necessary.  It is also not in dispute that on 12.5.13 the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.2000/- from the ATM machine of the S.B.I at Chandinichowk area of Cuttack.  The allegation of the complainant is that there were two strangers present inside the ATM counter when he had gone there in order to withdraw his money but as because he was in hurry to catch the train for Delhi, without waiting, he had withdrawn money to the tune of Rs.2000/- from his account through his ATM card after providing the PIN number.  Sometimes thereafter when he was going towards his house, the complainant had received a message in his mobile phone number that a sum of Rs.35,000/- has been withdrawn from his account.  He had verified the same from the ATM counter at Brundaban Complex area, near his residential house and thereafter had lodged FIR at the Police Station of Lalbag, lodged complaint through the Toll free number of the O.Ps and had gone to the Lalbag Police Station after returning from Delhi.  The complainant has urged that the left side ATM machine was defective and that two strangers were present during the said time when he had withdrawn his money, who might have taken away his money from the said defective ATM machine.  The complainant has further urged that there was no security personnel available at that time in the said ATM counter premises.  Be that as it may, one thing is for sure that in order to avail or withdraw certain sum of money within the prescribed limit for the day a customer has to use his ATM Card and to apply his secret PIN number so as to enable the ATM machine to provide him the money that he desires to withdraw.  Here in this case, the allegation of the complainant that two strangers had taken away his money from the defective left side ATM machine and that there were no security personnel would not suffice in making the complainant escape from tilting our eye brows towards him that how could the complainant provide his PIN number or ATM card to anyone else for withdrawal of his money.  His bald statement that the left side ATM machine was out of order is also not supported with any conclusive or cogent evidence.  Since when it is for sure that without the ATM Card and PIN number no stranger can withdraw money from the account holder, it can be termed only to be the callousness of the complainant for resulting in such unprecedented happening if any.  Thus, this Commission cannot hold here in absence of any cogent evidence that the O.Ps were at fault, were deficient in their service towards the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue is answered against the complainant.

Issues No.i & iii.

            From the above discussions, it can never be said here that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered.

                                                                        ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost

            Order pronounced in the open court on the 12^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                       Member