OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBER .
Consumer Complaint No. 61 of 2012
Date of Filling : - 25.06.2012.
Date of Order :- 28 .08.2018.
Deepak Ku.Acharya,S/O.Sri Kumud Ku.Acharya,
At-Qrs.No. A-1005,Nalco Nagar,PO/P.S-Nalco Nagar,
Dist.Angul,Pin- 759145. _________________________Complainant.
Vrs.
01.Branch Manager ,State Bank of India,
Kandasar Branch,Nalco Nagar,P.O/P.S.
Nalco Nagar,Dist.Angu,Pin- 759145.
02.Regional manager, State Bank of India,
Regional Office,At-Gandhi Marg,Angul,
P.O/P.S/Dist.Angul,Pin- 759122.
For the complainant :- Sri R.P.Pattanaik & associates(Advs.).
For the opp.parties :- Sri U.S.Mishra & associates(Advs.).
: J U D G E M E N T :
Smt.S.Mallick, Member.
Grievance of the complainant in the instant case is deficiency in service by the opp.parties.
2. The short case of the complainant is that – he is a consumer under the opp.parties bearing an S.B Account No. 10657969941 .Opp.party No.1 is the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kandasar Branch, Nalco Nagar and opp.party No.2 is the Regional Manager,State Bank of India, Regional Office, Angul. On 6.5.2012 complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1000.00 from his aforesaid SB account through ATM and after withdrawal, the balance amount was Rs. 43,449.22 paise. But after few days i.e on 11.5.2012 he stunned by seeing the balance checking slip dt. 6.5.2012, a sum of Rs. 39,000.00 has been withdrawn from his S.B account in question by an unknown culprit just after leaving the ATM counter by him. Immediately the matter was verbally intimated to the opp.party No.1 and FIR was lodged at Nalco police station for necessary inquiry. The photo copy of the said report vide station diary Entry No. 258 dt. 11.5.2012 is marked as “documents- 5”.On 13.5.2012 he lodged a complaint through SBI ATM customer Care No. 82794834987 and again lodged an FIR in Nalco police station on 28.5.2012 vide FIR No. 62/2012 (Annexure- 6) .The complainant being aggrieved then lodged written complaint to General Manager,SBI Local head office, Bhubaneswar vide complaint No. CC 1337918289163,Reserve Bank of India vide complaint No. 20112003001638,The Director of Public Grievance vide complaint No. DPG/B/2012/80169 and Branch Manager,State Bank of India Kandasar branch on 18.5.2012.He pleaded that despite of several persuasion for realization of his money, the opp.parties did not credit the amount due to the poor technical support of ATM for which he has sustained mental agony besides harassments and expenses. He therefore filed the present case to direct the opp.parties to credit Rs. 39,000.00 along with accrued interest @ 24% per annum from dt.6.5.2012 till actual credit along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.00 for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 1,00,00.00 towards cost of litigation.
3. The opp.parties entered appearance, filed written version and contested the case. In their written version the opp.parties admitted that they had received the complaint on 18.5.2012 from the complainant and as per requisition dt. 7.6.2012 sent by the IIC of Nalco PS the opp.party bank supplied the video photographs along with required address of certain ATM card holders. He again pleaded that on 28.6.2012 the police arrested Md.Ibrahim Ahamad and Jaipal Kalet from Hatibari,Sundargarh and recovered Rs. 39,000.00 from them which was handed over to the complainant by executing the zimanama on 28.6.2012.So they prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. On the basis of aforesaid pleading of the parties the following issues are settled for determination.
Issues:-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the opp.parties within the meaning of C.P.Act ?
- Whether the opp.parties have committed any deficiency in service by not refunding the money to the complainant in time as per law ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
: F I N D I N G S :
Issue No.(i):-It is an admitted fact that the complainant is an account holder with the State Bank of India vide of Kandasar branch,Nalco Nagar,Dist.Angul So we are of the opinion that in this case the complainant is a consumer and SBI/opp.parties are providing service as defined U/s. 2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act.
Issue No.(ii):-The opp.parties admitted that the theft was occurred in the ATM counter dt. 06,05.2012 and the police could trace the thieves with the help of the video footage which was provided by bank,that means the video footage in connection with the incident was in the custody of the bank authority ,but it is not clear whether (i) they watch it in a regular basis for the security of money of their customers and (ii) the ATM premises had security guards to look after and protect the consumers or not. If the ATM premises being guarded the miscreants would not have moved freely inside the ATM premises.Bank administration has failed to protect the customer’s money as bank is supposed to provide protection for the ATM machines,ATM premises etc . As per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, the burden of the proving the careless-ness of the customer , is on bank but he couldn’t supply any evidence on that basis So the bank authority failed to arrange proper service to the complainant which tantamounts to deficiency in service as defined U/s.2(1) g and 2(1)(0) of the C.P.Act respectively and for such act of opp.party/ bank, the complainant has to suffer financial loss, harassment and mental agony .The opp.parties did not take appropriate steps to protect the money of customers who kept it in its savings bank account on the ground of saving of their hard earned money .
Issue No.(iii):- In the light of above observations we are convinced to hold that bank authority is negligent and deficient to give protection in respect of the ATM and also to the card holder and his pin code .The complainant is entitled to get compensation as the bank violated the “ guidelines of Reserve bank of India (Effective from 1st July,2011) bank which fail to resolve complainants regarding ATM transactions within 7 working days, will have to pay customers Rs. 100.00 per day as compensation and he is supposed to resolve the liability accordingly . But neither the opp.party (bank) could supply any evidence on that basis to prove his zero liability nor credited customer’s right to get the penalty within the stipulated period. Rather they (bank) invested that money to make their personal profit by undermining the customer’s benefit (right to get compensation).So the complainant is entitled to get the interest on the amount of Rs. 39,000.00 for the stolen period of 53 days as the complainant has received his money by the effort of police by executing the zima nama dt. 28.06.2012
- Hence ordered.
: O R D E R :
The consumer complaint is allowed on contest and we direct the opp.parties to credit only the interest on Rs. 39,000.00 (Rupees Thirty-Nine Thousand) @ 5% per annum i.e for the period of 53 days . We further direct the opp.parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand) to the complainant along with the litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand) .
The aforesaid direction shall be implemented by the opp.parties within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which law shall take its own course.
Order delivered in the open forum today the 28th August, 2018 with hand and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
President.
( Smt.S.Mallick)
Member.
(Sri K.K.Mohanty),
Member
