- This is a petition filed by one Smti. Pramila Saikia (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) against the Manager of State Bank of India, Nagaon Branch, Nagaon and two others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs.
2. Facts and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioners are as follows:-
The petitioner being Indian Citizen having her permanent resident at Village Uttar- Petborha under Raha P.S. and consumer of S.B.I., Nagaon Branch having Saving Bank Account being No.3030421773 in that Branch. Further case of the complainant is that on last 25-01-2018, she tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.40,000.00 only from the ATM nearby the State bank of India, Nagaon Branch but did not receive any cash amount, however, the said amount of Rs.40,000.00 was deducted from her saving account No.3030421773. Her further averment is that thereafter, she tried to withdraw amount for three times but all times, she received slip from the ATM Machin ”INCONVENIECE IS REGRETTED-KINDLY CONTACT YOUR BRANCH OR CALL 24X7/HELPLINE AT 1800.”. The complainant again alleged that after receiving the advice slip, though she immediately informed the Bank Official of the State bank of India, Nagaon Branch but they did not solve her problem, so, she on 05-02-2018 filed a written complaint before the Assistant General Manager, State bank of India, Nagaon Branch requesting him to credit the deducted amount to her saving Bank Account but did not receive any positive response from him also. The complainant, thereafter, filed a complaint on last 29-06-2018 before Banking Ombudsman which was registered and as per advice of the Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, she appeared before the Banking Ombudsman on last 23-07-2018 at 3:30 P.M. and after hearing her claim and also considering the E.J.Log, A.T.M. log, Switch Report apart from the CCTV footage, the banking ombudsman hold that the disputed transaction was successful. She stated that the decision of Banking Ombudsman was not correct and she did not receive any cash money during the disputed transaction and there was a great deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties while dispensing cash amount from ATM Machine for which, she has to suffer from financial loss along with physical harassment and mental agony. Hence, this petition is before this Commission praying for the relief.
3. The opposite parties filed their written statement and pleaded inter alia that there was no cause of action for the complainant to file the instant case and the same is liable to be dismissed as the allegation made by the complainant have no nexus with the opposite parties. The opposite parties also pleaded that the petition of the complainant is not tenable in law and also barred by principle of wavier, stoppal and acquiesence etc. and that there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and the petitioner intending to gain unlawfully from the opposite parties has filed this petition. The opposite parties further submitted in their written statement that on last 25/01/2018, the petitioner withdrawn Rs.40,000.00 only from the ATM situated at E corner within the premises of the State bank of India, Nagaon Branch under transaction No.386 at 13:35 IST and the transaction was successful with response Code.000 and the opposite parties shown the complainant the Electric journal as well as CCTV footage. It is further averred by the Opposite parties that from the footage of CCTV, it is seen that during the transaction in question another person was standing by the side of the complainant and during the moment of cash dispensing, she was not in front of the ATM Machine and herself admitted before the Bank official that she had gone to another ATM without waiting for the cash dispensed during the said transaction and if she suffered pecuniary loss, it was for her own fault for which the opposite parties cannot be held liable. Hence, the opposite Parties pray for dismissing the complaint petition with cost.
4. Upon consideration of the averments of both the side, the points for consideration in this case are found as follows:-
- Whether on last 25-01-2018 at 13:35, the ATM Machine situated at E corner within the premises of State bank of India, Nagaon Branch, Nagaon did not dispense any cash amount during the transaction done by the complainant for which she had to suffer loss and such act, on the part of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service?
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief as prayed for?
5. Both parties filed evidence in affidavit of one witness each and also exhibited several documents in support of their respective claim. The witnesses were cross-examined by the opponents.
6. Written argument already filed by both the parties and perused the same.
7. Decision and reasons thereof:-
8. For the sake of brevity both the Point (i) & (i) are taken jointly for discussion and decision.:-
The claim of the petitioner is that she being the customer of the State Bank of India, Nagaon Branch tried to withdraw money from the ATM Machine situated at E corner within the premises of State bank of India, Nagaon branch on last 25-01-2018 at 13:35, but the machine did not dispense any cash amount but the said amount was deducted from her Bank Account. In support of her claim, the petitioner as P.W.1 adduced evidence to the effect that she on last 25-01-2018, tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.40,000.00 only from the ATM nearby State bank of India, Nagaon Branch but did not receive cash amount, however, the said amount of Rs.40,000.00 was deducted from her saving account No.3030421773. Her further evidence is that thereafter, she tried to withdraw amount for three times but all times, she received slip from the ATM Machine ”INCONVENIECE IS REGRETTED-KINDLY CONTACT YOUR BRANCH OR CALL 24X7/HELPLINE AT 1800”. The complainant also deposed that after receiving the advice slip, though she immediately informed the Bank Official of the State bank of India, Nagaon Branch but they did not solve her problem, so, she on last 05-02-2018 filed a written complaint before the Asstt. General Manager, State bank of India, Nagaon Branch requesting him to credit the deducted amount to her saving Bank Account but did not receive any positive response from him also. She deposed that as her problem was not solved by the Asstt. General Manager, State bank of India, Nagaon Branch, so, she filed a complaint on last 29-06-2018 before Banking Ombudsman which was registered and as per advice of the Asstt. General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, she appeared before the Banking Ombudsman on last 23-07-2018 at 3:30 P.M. and after hearing her claim and also considering the E.J.Log, A.T.M. log, Switch Report apart from the CCTV footage, the Banking Ombudsman hold that the disputed transaction was successful. She further adduced evidence that the decision of Banking Ombudsman was not correct and she did not receive any cash money during the disputed transaction and there was a great deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties while dispensing cash amount from ATM Machine for which, she has to suffer from financial loss along with physical harassment and mental pain. In support of their written version, the opposite parties examined one Rakesh Kumar Ravi, the Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, Nagaon Branch as D.W.1. In his evidence in affidavit, this D.W. deposed that on last 25/01/2018, the petitioner withdrawn Rs.40,000.00 only from the ATM situated at E corner within the premises of State bank of India, Nagaon Branch under transaction No.386 at time 13:35 IST and the transaction was successful with response Code.000 and the opposite parties shown the complainant the Electric journal as well as the CCTV footage of the disputed transaction. It is further deposed by D.W.1 that from the footage of CCTV, it was revealed that during the transaction in question another person was standing by the side of the complainant and during the moment of cash dispensing she was not in front of the ATM Machine and herself admitted before the Bank official that she had gone to another ATM without waiting for the cash dispensed during the said transaction and if she suffered pecuniary loss it was for her own negligent for which the opposite parties cannot be held liable. The D.W.1 further deposed that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties during the transaction in question and though the complainant filed a complaint before the Banking ombudsman vide order dated 23-07-2018, the Banking Ombudsman hold that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
Now from the above rival contention of bot the contesting parties, it is seen that both parties admitted the relevant transaction on the date of occurrence. The petitioner while alleging that cash was not dispense during the transaction, yet the amount of Rs.40,000.00 was debited from her Savings Bank Account, the opposite parties claimed that the E.J.Log, A.T.M. log, Switch Report apart from the CCTV footage clearly show that transaction was successful and cash was dispensed to the customer during the transaction. The opposite parties in support of their claim exhibited in evidence, the Electronic journal and ATM Log Report vide Ext. A dated 25-01-2018 and the CCTV footage dated 25-01-2018 regarding the disputed transaction vide Material Ext.B. From the pass book account vide Ext.1 hold by the complainant with the S.B.I. Nagaon Branch, it is found that an amount of Rs.40,000.00 was deducted from her bank account on last 25-01-2018.
Here the question arises whether the ATM receipt regarding unsuccessful transaction was obtained by the petitioner or not. From the exhaustive list of the documents submitted by the opposite parties with respected to the disputed transaction of Rs.40,000/- on last 25-01-2018 alleged to have been wrongly debited from the saving account of the complainant with the S.B.I. Nagaon Branch for which the complainant did not place on record any documentary evidence like ATM receipt regarding unsuccessful transaction on 25-01-2018, it is clear that the amount of Rs.40,000.00 was debited from the account of the complainant as successful transaction from her debit card. The same has been corroborated by Electronic journal and ATM Log Report vide Ext. A. The opposite parties by D.W.1 exhibited the video footage of the ATM house at the relevant time when the transaction in question was done by the complainant. on last 25/01/2018. The opposite party asserted and adduced evidence that the petitioner withdrawn Rs.40,000.00 only from the ATM situated at E corner within the premises of State bank of India, Nagaon Branch under transaction No.386 at 13:35 IST and the transaction was successful with response Code.000 and accordingly, the complainant received S.M.S. alert also. From the V.D.O. footage vide material Ext.B exhibited by the D.W.1, it is seen that on last 25-01-2018 at 13:33:19 a lady and after her a man were seen standing in front of the A.T.M. machine and transaction request was made at the same time. It is further seen from Material Ext. B that at 13:23:25 of the day, the transaction reply received, at 13:13:40 Pin entered, at 13:34:54 amount entered 40,000/-, at 13:34:55 cash dispensed and at 13:35:18 cash was taken but at the time of dispensing case, the lady in front was not seen present there. Hence, the important point here is whether the ATM receipt regarding unsuccessful transaction was obtained by the petitioner or not. Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Dinesh Malik Vs- State Bank of Patiala reported in (201 6) CPJ 550 (NC) has held that “in view of the fact that the petitioner has not filed the basic ATM receipt or any other proof in support of his claim to dispute the 4-1.2.3.4 transaction we find no force in the assertion of the petitioner.”
It is true that the journal printer in the ATM is the final proof of transaction and accepted worldwide and cannot be manipulated by any person in any manner in whatsoever and the petitioner had not submitted any proof that the money was not disbursed by the Bank ATM. The petitioner also did not stated anywhere that she did not receive the ATM receipt regarding the unsuccessful transaction at the relevant time.
Hence, after analyzing the all the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and the position of law alluded above, this commission is of opinion that the petitioner has not able to establish in this case that there was any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Thus, we do not find any cogent and plausible reason to allow the petition filed by the complainant.
In result both the points for discussion and decision are answered in negative and go against the complainant.
O R D E R
8. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has not succeeded to prove that there was a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is dismissed on contest.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 31st Day of July 2023.
