Per Hon’ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member

1.     This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 01.03.2013 passed by The Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’, in Appeal No. 1358 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 21.09.2012 in C.C. No. 136 of 2012 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’.

2.     The Petitioner herein, Mr. Sandeep, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

The Respondents herein, Punjab National Bank, were the Opposite Parties before the District Forum, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Bank’.

3.     Heard the Complainant in person.

Perused the entire material on record including inter alia the Order dated 21.09.2012 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 01.03.2013 of the State Commission and the Memo of Petition.

4.     The case relates to an allegation of erroneous debit of Rs. 15,000/- from the Complainant’s account with the Bank, after he attempted to use his Debit / ATM Card in the Bank’s ATM (Automatic Teller Machine).  

The facts of the case have been succinctly articulated by the State Commission in its Order of 01.03.2013. The relevant extract is reproduced below:

It is a case wherein the complainant was holding saving bank account No. 1457000101066508 with the opposite party No. 1. The complainant also used ATM card issued by the opposite parties. As per version of the complainant on 19.2.2012 he used the ATM card for withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- but the ATM machine was not working at PNB ATM A-9, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. The complainant was shocked when he found Rs. 15,000/- was debited from his account. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties and given his written request for obtaining Video footage but of no use. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.

Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement the opposite parties took the plea that the ATM in question was working properly and as per their record the complainant had successfully withdrawn a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the ATM of opposite parties vide transaction No. 4927. After the above transaction the balance was Rs. 3145.24 ps. AND response code was 000. Denying any kind of deficiency of service it was prayed that complaint merited dismissal.

5.     The District Forum vide its Order dated 21.09.2012 allowed the Complaint.

6.     The Bank filed an Appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the State Commission.

7.     The State Commission heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 01.03.2013, allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Complaint.  

For ready appreciation, extract from the appraisal made by the State Commission is reproduced below:

From the perusal of the record, it is clearly established on the record that on 19.2.2012 the complainant used her ATM card in the ATM counter of opposite parties wherein he withdrawn a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from his account. As per version of the complainant the said transaction was unsuccessful as the machine was switched off. However, as per record of the opposite parties the complainant has successfully withdrawn the amount of Rs. 15,000/- and the transaction was successful. It is not disputed that in this modern era all the accounts are maintained by the banks through computerized system and the entries with respect to the deposit and withdrawal are made by electronic system upto the Head office of the bank. In the instant case from the record of the opposite parties it is established that Rs. 15,000/- was withdrawn in respect of the account of the complainant through ATM and no excess amount was found in the ATM machine, therefore, the bank cannot made liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Moreover, the ATM card remains with the possession of complainant along with its secret number and no other person can withdraw any amount without the secret code number. Merely because the CCTV footage was not available does not mean that the money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using the ATM card and PIN number. It is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an authorized person from an ATM. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the actual controversy involved in this case and committed grave error while accepting the complaint and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8.     It is well evinced that the ATM was functional. Rs. 15,000/- was withdrawn by using the Complainant’s Debit / ATM Card. The transaction was successful; response code “000”, which indicates a successful transaction, was generated. Debit of Rs. 15,000/- was made in the Complainant’s account. No extra undispensed money was found in the ATM.

9.     The responsibility of keeping his Debit / ATM Card safe, as well as keeping his PIN (Personal Identification Number) confidential, was on the Complainant.

10.   The onus of proving his allegation was on the Complainant, which onus he failed to discharge.

11.   The District Forum erred in appreciating the facts and evidence, and arrived at erroneous findings. 

On the other hand, the State Commission made a correct appreciation of the facts and evidence, and passed a well-appraised and well-reasoned Order.

12.   Sequel to the above discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed, the State Commission’s Order dated 01.03.2013 is upheld and sustained.