Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 30.09.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite party to return Rs. 15,000/- ( Rs. Fifteen Thousand only ).

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that on 15.09.2008 he attempted to withdraw Rs. 15,000/- from ATM but due to technical snag of A.T.M. the aforesaid amount remained inside the A.T.M. At that time his balance amount was Rs. 26,246/-. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,000/- was debited from his account inspite the fact that the complainant did not get the aforesaid amount from aforesaid ATM.

It is further case of the complainant that as he was in need of money on the same day he withdrew Rs. 10,000/- and his balance amount came to Rs. 1,246/- in his account.

Thereafter the complainant informed the Bank authorities but no action was taken.

On behalf of opposite party a reply petition i.e. (written statement) has been filed stating therein that after the complaint, opposite party verified the matter from New Delhi Data Center and FTP report file of the switch room has clearly reported that A.T.M. machine had no error and withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- was successful.

In support of the aforesaid fact the bank has annexed fault call report in which it is mentioned that the aforesaid withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- was successful and there was no error in the A.T.M. The photocopy of aforesaid Fault report has been annexed with written statement on behalf of opposite party.

It has been further asserted in reply ( written statement ) of opposite party that any failure in transaction from A.T.M. is immediately and automatically observed as record of such failure is recorded but in the instant transaction no such reversion entry was found and hence there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party.

On behalf of complainant a reply has been filed to the aforesaid reply ( written statement ) of the opposite party repeating same facts stated in the complaint petition. However in Para – 7 of the aforesaid hand written reply it has been mentioned by the complainant that at the relevant time no disbursement of amount more than Rs. 15,000/- was allowed.

It further transpires that this Forum directed the opposite party to inform about the maximum withdrawal of the amount in one day from the A.T.M. at the relevant time.

A letter dated 30.04.2013 of the Chief Manager is in the record from perusal of which it appears that at the relevant time i.e. on 15.09.2008 the maximum withdrawal for first time was Rs. 15,000/- but in the whole day the maximum withdrawal from A.T.M. was allowed as Rs. 25,000/-. Thus the contention of the complainant that at the relevant time only Rs. 15,000/- withdrawal was permitted in one day is not correct.

From the order sheet dated 11.11.2015 and 13.02.2015 it appears that the opposite party was required to submit C.C.T.V. footage which has not submitted.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently submitted that due to fault of the A.T.M. the complainant could not withdraw Rs. 15,000/- from A.T.M. as it was out of order. Hence he has prayed to direct the opposite party to return the aforesaid amount as well as compensation and litigation costs.

It is the case of the complainant that on 15.09.2008 he could not get Rs. 15,000/- from A.T.M. due to snag in the A.T.M. and the maximum withdrawal on that day was Rs. 15,000/-. As stated above the opposite party has asserted that the transaction was successful and there was no snag in the A.T.M.

It is needless to say that from the report of the Chief Manager as well as “Fault call report” annexed by the opposite party it is crystal clear that there was no snag in the machine and withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- was successful.

It further transpires that at the relevant time Rs. 25,000/- was allowed on the whole day but one time one could only withdraw only Rs. 15,000/-.

It goes without saying that the complainant has withdrawn Rs. 15,000/- in first time and in second time he has withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- on the same day. Hence the assertion of the complainant that first time he could not get the amount of Rs. 15,000/- is not proved because there is no document on the record which could show that the fact mentioned in “Fault call report” is not correct. At this juncture it would be proper to note that the transaction took place on 15.09.2008 and this Forum directed the opposite party to submit C.C.T.V. footage in the year 2015 i.e. after delay of about six years. It is not possible for a bank to keep all the C.C.T.V. footage for such a long time because no such direction was given to opposite party at the earlier stage i.e. in the year 2008.

For the discussion made above we find and hold that opposite party has not committed any deficiency.

For the discussion made above this complaint petition stands dismissed.

                             Member                                                                              President