IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/2/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
04.01.18 11.01.18 13.01.2020
Complainant: JaminulSk
S/O- Lt. JahurSk, Vill- Bartanabad,
PO- P.T. Rasulpur, PS- Domkal,
Pin- 742303
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager,
Canada Bank ,Domkal Branch
Vill& PO & PS- Domkal, Pin- 742303
2.Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Bank
Kesob Nagar, Panchanantala,
PO- Boliadanga, Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Abdul WadudSarkar.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 1 : Sri. KanchanGhatak.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2 : Sri. SubhanjanSengupta.
Present: Sri AsishKumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy……………………………………Member
FINAL ORDER
AlokaBandyopadhyay, Member.
OneJaminulSekh (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the caseagainst Branch Manager, Canara Bank and another(here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant has a joint account with his daughter with the CanaraBank (OP No.1). By using the ATM Card issued by the O.P1, the Complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 17.07.17 from the ATM of ICICI Bank (O.P-2) at DomkalBabuPara but he failedas no amount has been dispensed by the said ATM. The Complainant made the written complaint before both the Branch Managers of the OPs. He also informed the matter to the Domkal PS on 09.08.17 but as his problem has not been solved, he again made a complaint to SDPO, Domkal. Later on 20.11.17 he made a complaint before S.P. Murshidabad but all went in vain. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.
After service of the notice the OPs appeared before this Forum to controvert the allegation of the Complainant.
The OP No.1in the written version stated that ATM transaction is mentioned by the H.O Bangalore of the Canara Bank and system prevails that Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn but if the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not come out from the ATM machine due to technical fault then the money will go into a separate box which is called reject bin and authority concerned of the ICICI Bank ( OP No.2) can only speak what was happened on that day.So there is no deficiency on their part.
The OP No.2 in the written version stated that after getting the alleged complaint from the Complainant they sought for EJ Copy, Switch Report and Cash Tally certificate on the date mentioned by the Complainant and as per those documents, it is clear that the transaction in question had been successful on 17.07.17. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the case is liable to be dismissed against them.
On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for consideration
-
2. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OPs for consideration.
The Ld. Advocatesfor the O.Ps submit that the case is not maintainable.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as he hired services of the OPs as a customer of banking services.
It is the allegation of the complainant that the Complainant for the purpose of withdrawing Rs.10,000/- on 17.07.17 from the ATM of ICICI Bank (O.P2) at Domkal Babu Para used the ATM Card issued by the Canara Bank(O.P1) against the joint account with his daughter lying with OP No.1 but his transaction was failed and he had not received any amount. The Complainant also made written complaint before the OP No.1 on 1st August, 2017. The Complainant also made complaint before local P.S. on 09.08.17 later on to the SDPO, Domkal on 21.08.17 and lastly on 20.11.17 to the S.P. Murshidabad. The OP No.1 in the written version stated that ATM transaction is maintained by the Head Office, Bangalore of the Canara Bank and the system prevailed that Rs.10,000/- had been withdrawn ( vide Annexure-1) which is the account settlement of the Complainant dated 17.07.17.As per the written version of the OP No.1 the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- has came out from the ATM machine or not, it is only visible by the statement of the ICICI Bank, if the amount has not come out from the ATM machine due to technical problem in that case the money will go to a separate box which is called reject bin. andwhen the authority of the ATM counter of the ICICI Bank will come to put money into ATM machine then they can see about this matter so, CCTV footage is required to solve the complaint of the Complainant.
The OP No. 2 stated that upon receipt of the instant complaint from the Complainant, the Opposite Party as a diligent banker carried out necessary investigation in respect of the alleged incident to ascertain the genuineness of the claims being made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party submits that with a view to address the grievances raised by the Complainant, the Opposite Party sought for the (i) EJ Copy, (ii) Switch Report and (iii) No Excess Cash Certificate. The Opposite Party further submits that upon receipt of the said documents and a perusal of the ATM switch report and the EJ copy dated 17.07.17 it is clear that the transaction in question had been successful. The EJ Copy and the ATM Switch Report have been annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A and Annexure-B respectively.
The Ld. Advocate of the OP No.2 drew our attention that various other transactions have been carried out on the said date and many individuals have withdrawn money from the said ATM but none other than the Complainant herein have lodged any complaints and/or disputes with regards thereto. It is also submitted that in case of any defect with the ATM machine in dispensing money, many more complaints would have been made and/or disputes raised by other complainants, however no such complaints and/or disputes have been made or raised. The O.P 2 in the written version stated that the ATM cash tally report for July 17,2017 displays a zero balance which implies that the disputed transaction is successful (vide annexture-c). Though the OP1 stated that video footage is necessary for this case which is only available with the OP2 but the Ld. Advocate for the O.P2 also stated that video footage has no relevancy in this case. In this connection the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 also provided us a citation passed in RP2382 in 2012 dated 08.01.2012 passed by Hon’ble National Commission dated 18.01.13 in State Bank of India Vs. Om Prakash Saini wherein it is held that video footage had no relevance at all because this is not the case of the Complainant that he did not go to operate ATM machine of Opposite party. Opposite party has also mentioned in its written statement that camera is fixed only on the face of the user and not on the keys of the ATM and the delivery window. In such circumstances, non-supply of video footage had no bearing on the claim of the Complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and arguments advanced by both the parties we are of the view that J.P Log is completely system generated documents as a proof of any transaction against the A.T.M card of the complainant and as per Cash Tally Certificate there is no overage,it also proofs the transaction .It is not the fact that every person presumed to be 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 matter complainant has to prove his claim by preponderance of evidence and we have limited scope in the summary trial and the Complainant has failed to prove his case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the OPs.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 04.01.2018 and admitted on 11.01.18 . 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.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the complaint case fails. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/2/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed on the contest against the OPs 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 Member President
