IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/14/2017
Date of Filing: 14.02.2017 Date of Final Order: 27.12.18
Complainant: Rinku Karmakar,
W/O Swapan Kr. Karmakar
24/117/B, J.C. Road, PO-Khagra,
PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742103
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager,
Bharatiya Mahila Bank,
Berhampore Brance,
81,Amar Chakraborty Road (Main)
Indraparastha, PO-Khagra, PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742103
2. Manager State Bank of India,
Mukundapur Branch,
Mukundapur,
Kol-99
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant: 1. Sri. Abu Sufi Md. Firoj
2. Sri. Firdaus Wahid Siddique
3. Sri. Parijat Ray
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri. Satinath Chandra
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Rinku Karmakar (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, Bharatiya Mahila Bank and Others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The brief fact of the case is as such:
The case of the Complainant is that for the purpose of withdrawal of money on 22.08.16 and 23.08.16, the Complainant visited the ATM of SBI, Mukundapur (O.P -2). No cash has been received by the Complainant after observing due procedure. On 27.08.16 after the discharge of the daughter of the Complainant when she went at the office of the OP No.1 for update of the passbook, became surprised to see that on 22.08.16 Rs.20,000/- and on 23.08.16 Rs.5,500/- has been debited from the said account of the Complainant. So, she made online complaint on 03.11.16 and the said complaint has been rejected by OP No.1 as it has been already rejected by OP No.2. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the case before this Forum for appropriate relief.
OPs appeared by filing written version denying and disputing all material allegations, contending, inter alia that on 22.08.16 and 23.08.16 the Complainant by using her ATM Card being No. 6081 1001 5093 1001 had withdrawn a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,500/- respectively and the said amount had correctly been debited from the savings account being No.101500092335. The OPs specifically stated that there were two sections in ATM. One was related to Banks Ledger through CBS and another was related to ATM Switch Centre, Belapore. After getting valid instruction from the card holder the system automatically got connected with specific account and debited the demanded amount subject to availability of balance and simultaneously the machine delivered cash and the said delivery was exclusively controlled by ATM Switch Centre, Belapore. The OPs further stated that after making enquiry relating to the complaint made by the present petitioner/Complainant, no difference has been found in the records of Bank Account or the records of ATM Switch Centre. Moreover OP No.2 stated that Complainant is not his customer as such she cannot be consumer under it. Accordingly, both the OPs prayed for dismissal of the case on the ground of their no fault.
Now the question arises whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reason
The Complainant claimed to have attempt made by her on 22.08.16 and 23.08.16 for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,500/- respectively from her savings Bank Account lying with OP No.1 by using her ATM card from the ATM of SBI, Mukundapur ( O.P-2)and her attempts failed as no money has came out from the said machine. On 27.08.16 the Complainant after the discharge of her daughter from the Hospital of Mukundapur went for updated the position of her passbook, found a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,500/- respectively was debited from her S/B Account. On the other hand, the OPs stated that the transaction on 22.08.16 and 23.08.16 made by the Complainant were successful and accordingly, the said amount was rightly debited from her Savings Bank Account.
In course of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant stated that at the time of updating of the passbook the Complainant came to know the fact and before hand she was busy for her ailed daughter.
At the time of hearing the Ld. Advocate on behalf of OPs submitted that the transactions were very much successful and the same would appear from the statement of Customer Care Transaction, J.P.Logs and no excess cash certificate, so the bank rightly debited the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,000/- and 5,500/- respectively from the S/B account of the Complainant.
The only question which rises for consideration in this present complaint petition is as to whether the transaction was successful or not i.e. whether the Complainant has actually received the debited sums or not?
Complainant has submitted the xerox copy of passbook and filed up complaint forms for aforesaid debited amount dated 17.10.16 and the OP No.2 has submitted J.P.Logs (Annexure-A&B) and Admin End Balance of ATM (Annexure-C) and also a series of citations.
As per record of the Bank and J.P.Logs which is a completely machine generated documents are the proof of alleged transactions against the ATM Card of the Complainant on those particular dated containing Transaction No. (TXN No.), Date, Time, ATM Card No. etc. against each transaction. From the said J.P.Logs dated 22.08.16 a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn against TXN No.3270 on the same day and on 23.08.16 a sum of Rs.5,500/- has been withdrawn against TXN No.3725 (Vide Annexure A&B).
Ld advocate for the O.Ps drew our attention to the fact that if the complainant has not withdrawn Rs.25,500/- (10,000+10,000+5,500) the aforesaid amount would have became an extra amount in the record of the Bank. No such excess amount was shown in the record of the Bank. This clearly indicated that the said amount of Rs.(10,000+10,000+5,500)=25,500/- was actually withdrawn.
It is not the fact that every person presumed to be a liar though machine normally does not speak lie but man may do so. Sometime machine may fail. But in this present case as a Civil matters Complainant has to prove his claim by preponderance of evidence and we have limited scope in the summary trial. Moreover, in this case video footage had no relevance at all because this not the case of the Complainant that she did not go to operate ATM machine of the OP No.2 and it is also mentioned in the W/V of the O.Ps that camera in the ATM room is fixed only on the face of the user and not on the keys of the ATM mechine and the delivery window. So the non supply of video footage has no relevance in this case. It is also not cleared before us being a consumer why the complainant has filed the complainant before the O.Ps after a long time though the daughter of the complainant has been released from the hospital in the month of occurance of the said incident.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel of the respective parties and the citation provided before us, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and the Complainant has failed to prove her case. So, the case is dismissed against the OPs.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 14.02.17 and admitted on 28.02.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the Complaint Case No. CC/14/2017 be and the same is dismissed
on contest against the OPs but without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
