J U D G E M E N T
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:
That the complainant being an account holder of OP-1, the OP-1 issued an ATM card in his favour. On 12.4.2014 when the complainant went to Kolkata for his personal work he went to the ATM counter of ICICI Bank, Central Avenue Branch for requirement of some money. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said ATM counter there were two ATM for withdrawal of money. When the complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,000=00 from his SB account by punching his ATM card in the first machine, no money was received by the complainant from the first machine. So he tried to withdraw the money of same
1
amount from the second ATM of that ATM counter and withdraw successfully Rs. 1,000=00 but the said machine did not provide any printed slip. On the very next day the complainant went to the office of the Op-2 for updating his pass book and after updating his pass book he came to know that Rs. 10,000=00 was deducted from his account. By getting shocked the complainant contacted with the OP-2 and the official of the OP-1 did not pay any heed to such request and asked for contacting the Calcutta Branch of OP-2. Then the complainant also visited the office of the OP-3 but they also did not bother to pay any heed to the request of your complainant for resolving the dispute. On 16.4.2013 the complainant lodged a complaint before the OP-1 but no response has been received by the complainant. Ever after that several reminders were given to the Op-1 for resolving the dispute including letter to the Ombudsmen but without any response. Though the complainant is a bonafide customer of the Ops but the Ops have not taken any step top regularize the account. These conducts of the Ops are tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for. The complainant has prayed relief as under:
- Directing the Ops to pay Rs. 10,000=00 for the conducts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,
- Directing the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000=00 for mental pain, agony and harassment,
- Directing the Ops to pay an interest @18% per annum.
The OP-1 has contested the case by filing written version denying the allegations made by the complainant in his petition of complaint against the OP-1. The OP-1 further stated that the complainant is a customer of OP-1 and according to the prayer of the complainant; the OP-1 issued an ATM card to the complainant. The complainant used his ATM card by using four digit identification numbers (confidential number) to withdraw Rs. 10,000=00 on 12.4.2013 and the complainant received the said money. The Op-1 has verified the records and found that all the transactions on the said date were successful. ATM card can only be used if the customer inputs his four digit identification number which is selected by the customer and no one can operate without putting four digit identification numbers. In the interest of security, the customer is advised to retain this PIN in his memory. The reverse of the ATM has a magnetic strip contain the card holder’s details. This card can be used to gain entry into ATM enclosure by swiping it in the access lodge which is supported by the order of revision petition no. 3182/2008
2
dated 7th April, 2011 of the National Commission of India against the order dated 30.5.2008 in Appeal No. 364/2008 of the State Commission, Delhi. This OP further state that the complaint is baseless without any cause and the complainant is concealing the actual state of facts and circumstances and filed this complaint as
Test Suit for undue gain from the Ops by misguiding the ld. Forum. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
The OP-2 has also contested the case by filing separate written version denying the entire allegations made by the complainant in the petition of complaint. OP-2 has stated that the complainant holds an account bearing no. 11885311983 with the OP-1 and avails the debit card facility being provided by the OP-1. The OP-2 has further stated that as per Electronic Journal Report of the both the ATMs the complainant had withdrawn the said amount from ATM 2 at 8:40 pm. Subsequently, the complainant had moved to ATM 1 and withdrawn said disputed amount at 8:41 pm. Both the transactions are successful in nature and it is not out of place to state that both the transactions having taken place within a time span of 1 minute have been successful and the complainant has duly received the money dispensed by both the ATM kiosks. It has further stated that the complainant states that OP-2 had updated the pass book of the complainant but the same is false and concocted because it is not possible for OP-2 to update pass book of customers of OP-1 or any other institutions. The OP-2 further reiterated that as per the EJ report and cash tally report it is evident that both the transactions are successful and the OP-2 is not deficient in discharging its services. It has further urged that the EJ report and cash tally report operate as conclusive proof of the genuineness of the transactions and errors, in case of any, in dispensing money shall be reflected in such log reports. The OP-2 has also stated that the complainant has failed to show a cause of action and make out a prima facie case towards deficiency of service and/or establish existence of a lies as against the OP-2. The relief as sought for against the OP-2 is misconceived and the same are emphatically denied and as such it has humbly prayed to dismiss the instant complaint case against the OP-2.
On going through the statements of both parties and record and the case reference it is in admitted position that the complainant had a SB Account with Op-1 Bank along with ATM card and the complainant used his ATM card on 12.4.2013. The allegation of the complainant is that his ATM operation for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000=00 was not successful is totally denied by OP-1&2 as ATM Pin is confidential and only known to the user. Moreover, Cash Tally Report
3
and EJ Report of OP-2 also confirm that all the transactions of the said date were successful. If there was any fault in dispensing money it should be reflected in such log report and there was no such log report on the said date. The stand of the Ops is supported by the order of Revision Petition No. 3182/2008 dated 07.4.2011 of the Hon’ble National Commission against the order dated 30.5.2008 in Appeal No. 364/2008 of the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi. In view of the above order we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the petition of complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Durga Sankar Das)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Durga Sankar Das)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
