BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                          Complaint No.: 304 of 2015.

                                                          Date of Institution: 29.10.2015.

                                                          Date of Decision: 09.01.2019.

Kailash Sharma son of Shri Rameshwar Lal, resident of VPO Mandoli Kalan, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.

….Complainant.

                             Versus

1.       The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Branch Bhiwani, Circular Road, old Bus Stand, Bhiwani.

2.       The Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Branch Ghanta Ghar, Bhiwani.

…Opposite Parties.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri Shankar Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                    Shri Sunil Sharma, Advocate for the OP No. 1.

Shri M. L. Sardana, Advocate for the OP No. 2.

ORDER: -

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is having bank account bearing No.402010100034140 with OP No. 1 bank. It is alleged that on 16.6.2015 the statement of account shows balance of Rs.16,291/- in the account.  It is further alleged that in the evening at about 15.00 on 16.6.2015 the complainant went to the ATM of OP No. 2 situated at BTM Road, Bhiwani to withdraw Rs. 10,000/-.  It is further alleged that the transaction was shown successful, but he did not get any money from the ATM and he immediately sent information through SMS on customer care No.1800-233-5577 about the unsuccessful transaction.  It is further alleged that the complainant also lodged a complaint ID No.1506-027875, but to no effect.  It is further alleged that the complainant also gave an application to OP No. 1 regarding unsuccessful transaction mentioning all the facts, on this OP No. 1 raised the dispute with OP No. 2 with request to provide footage of the said transaction.  It is further alleged that the OPs have to provide the footage of the transaction and to indemnify the complainant for the wrong debit of Rs.10,000/- from his account by showing the unsuccessful transaction as successful.  It is further alleged that a legal notice dated 23.9.2015 was also served upon the OPs, but in its reply to the legal notice the OP No. 2 clearly refused his liability and responsibility towards the complainant in lieu of that unsuccessful transaction.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint. 

2.                 OP No.1 on appearance filed the contested written statement and contested the complaint of the complainant mainly on the ground that the ATM machines are installed by various banks throughout the country and supported by the highest technology and excellent surveillance and innumerable customers use these facilities across the country and ATMs have not failed to show the correct deposit or withdrawal.  It is alleged that there is a Journal Printer in the machine which records each and every transaction done through the ATM and these ATMs are full proof system with reconciling accounts.  It is further alleged that as per the record of ATM and scroll, the transaction of Rs.10,000/- was successful and it is in the knowledge of the complainant that he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 16.6.2015.  It is further alleged that the complainant himself admitted that he requested to provide the CD and pen drive which were provided by the OP bank to him after getting the proper charges and as per the CD provided to him the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant.  Hence, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                OP No.2 on appearance filed separate contested written statement and contested the complaint of the complainant mainly on the sole ground that on receipt of complaint from OP No. 1 the matter was got enquired into and the transaction bearing No. 5542 dated 16.6.2015 of the complainant was found successful, as per the ATM record, mail received from the reconciliation team and as per EJ.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs

4.                Complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit Annexure CW1/A, affidavit of one Krishan Kumar Annexure C-2/A and Annexure C-2 to C-9 in his evidence to prove his version and close the evidence.

5.                   Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed on record Annexure R1 & R5 and closed the evidence.

6.                   We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.

7.                  After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties at length and having gone through the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as he has miserably failed to produce cogent and convincing evidence to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  It is admitted fact that the complainant is having account in the OP No.1 bank and also enjoying the ATM facility.  The main question to adjudicate this complaint is whether the OPs have committed any deficiency in service or not?  The sought answer is “No”.  The complainant in his complaint has alleged that he tried to withdraw money through the ATM of OP No.2 bank, but the Machine failed to discharge money, but transaction shown as successful. This plea of the complainant is not tenable at all because complainant has miserably failed to prove that there was any malafide intention on the part of the OPs. Moreover, from the perusal of annexure R4 and R5, it is clear that the transaction remained successful and complainant himself withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 16.6.2015, which is also clear from the record of the A.T.M.  It has also come in evidence that the record of the A.T.M. was checked, but no excess cash was found.

           Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 09-01-2019.       

(Renu Chaudhary)         (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.