: J U D G M E N T :
This is the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Afuja Mandal (Bibi), Chandipur, P.S. Nakashipara of Nadia against the Branch Manager, AXIS Bank, Krishnagar Branch, Nadia and Branch Manager, SBI, Debagram Branch and Chief Manager, Krishnagar main Branch.
The SBI did not contest the case. It is only AXIS Bank which has contested the case. The facts and the circumstance of the complaint case be summarized as below:-
The complainant used ATM counter of OP No. 2 on 18.06.14. She used the ATM and the money was deducted but it was not a successful operation. The account No. of the complainant is 914010018371823. Due to unsuccessful operation the complainant met the bank official that she did not get any relief. On 18.06.14 from the ATM counter OP No. 1 & 3 Rs. 10,000/- was not received by the complainant. The complainant has prayed for payment of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
Annexure – 1 is the application of the complainant. Annexure – 2 is the photocopy of the AXIS Bank account operations.
OP No. 1 files written version on December, 4, 2014, challenging the complaint. The gist of the written version is as below:-
The allegations of the complainant is baseless. The OP No. 1 has no liability only SBI has controll over the ATMs. It has been admitted in the written version that sum of Rs. 10,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant on 18.06.14 through ATM transactions by card No. 5296150004118225. The opposite party has no liability to reimburse Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
Since OP No. 2 & OP No. 3 did not file written version, the case went ex parte against the State Bank of India.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Have the OPs deficient in their services?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
The complainant has filed the affidavit-in-chief in order to substantiate her case. Perused the affidavit dtd. 17.12.14 and other documents and also perused the evidence of PW 2 and PW3, Hasan Ujjaman Mandal and Abdul Kalam Sk.
We have also perused the interrogatories and replies.
We have meticulously gone through the documents filed by both parties. Annexure - 1 and Annexure – 2 and Annexure – A, B and C filed by the OP No 1.
Perused annexure – A, B and C filed by the Bank. It is clear that the operation and the ATM was successful and Rs. 10,000/- was delivered by the ATM machines on 06.08.14 at 8.38 AM.
The journal is an important document showing successful operation and delivery of Rs. 10,000/- on 06.18.14 at 08.38 hrs from SBI, Debagram ATM. ID S1BW003242002. The card No. is 5296150004118225. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has placed before us IV (2010) CPJ 275 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata that judgment of the District Forum should not be interfered with. The District Forum, Siliguri directed the OPs to pay Rs.14,000/- within 45 days. The case referred above does not tally with the facts of the present case. In the case at hand we find from the journal that the operation was successful. But in the case District Forum, Siliguri nowhere it has been mentioned that the operation was successful. Hence, we are not in a position to apply IV (2010) CPJ 275. Thus, all the points are against the complainant.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2014/133 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
