As per the complainant O.P. never takes any initiative to refund of Rs. 20,000/- and on 13.02.2018 the complainant deposited a self Account payee cheque of Rs. 20,000/- for withdraw of Rs. 20,000/-. But he became astonished that his Account is freeze by the Bank Authority. Then, the complainant went to Manager of the said Bank and enquired the matter. The Manager of the O.P. No. 1 speaks that if complainant submits a declaration that he has no claim against the said transaction dated 08.08.2017 and returns the amount which was credited by the Bank Authority after receiving the complaint then the O.P. No. 1 shall restore from the freeze mode of the said account and the complainant will smoothly operate the said account. As a result the complainant falls in various troubles in his daily life.
Thereafter, the complainant made several requests to the O.P. No. 1 that the said account is a salary account of the complainant and his monthly salary is credited in the said account. On the month of March 2018 the O.P. 1 told that he can operate the said account after keeping the minimum balance of Rs. 20,000/- in the said account and he will never be able to withdraw the said Rs. 20,000/- as the O.P. till now does not refund the disputed amount of rest Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the complaint which the complainant is unable to withdraw through ATM transactions. So, it is clearly deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No. 1.
Defence Case
The Opposite Parties are contesting the case denying all the materials allegations in the complaint.
The specific case of the Opposite Parties is that OP No. 1 as soon as got the complaint made enquiry from all concerns and found that both the transactions were successfully and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- ( Rs. 20,000/- + 20,000/-) has been withdrawn successfully on 08.08.2017 by using the ATM Card of the complainant. The Opposite Parties pray for rejection of the complaint.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Whether the Complaints Case is bad for defect of parties?
4. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
5. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
It is the case of the complainant that he tried to operate the ATM account by putting ATM Card twice for Rs. 20,000/- each time on 08/08/2017 but no amount was withdrawn by him at that time rather Rs. 40,000/- has been debited from his account lying with the O. P. Bank.
On the other hand, the O.P. Bank stated that transactions on 08/08/2017 for Rs. 40,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + Rs. 20,000/-) was successful and accordingly the said amounts were debited from his said savings Bank account. In the W/V the O.P. stated as follows: “as and when a customer inserts ATM Card in the card reader, the menu instructs him to select the type of transaction, language and entering the PIN. After the PIN is entered, the information reaches ASC which is verified by ASC and, thereafter the transaction is sent to CDC. On receiving the authorization from CDC, cash is dispensed to the customer and the amount is debited from the account of the customer.”
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. specifically stated that there are two sections in ATM. One is related to Banks ledger through CBS and another is related to ATM switch centre, Belapore. After getting valid instruction from the cardholder the system automatically got connected with specific account & debited the demanded amount subject to availability of balance & the machine delivered the cash and the said delivery is exclusively controlled by ATM switch centre, Belapore.
The complainant also alleged that the O.P. Bank credited Rs. 20,000/- and rest Rs. 20,000/- has not been credited in his account lying with the O.P. which he was unable to withdraw on that date from ATM transactions. During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. also stated that the bank has extended a facility to its customers to lodge complain through online system called CMS complain and to provide better service to the bonafide customers the online system automatically credits the amount as per demand of the customers after lodging the complaint before entering into enquiry.
During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Bank stated that as a diligent banker also carried out necessary investigation of the incident to ascertain the genuineness of the claims being made by the complainant. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits that with a view to address the grievances raised by the complainant the O.P. sought for (i) Admin balance, (ii) E.J. Copy, (iii) Cash balance report, (iv) Admin slip. The O.P. further submits that from the above said documents it is clear that the transaction in question had been successful. The above mentioned documents have been annexed hereto and marked as Annexture- A, B, C, D respectively. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. also drew our attention that various transactions have been carried out on the said date but none other than the complainant herein have lodged any complaint. It is also submitted that in case of any defect with the ATM machine many more complaints would have been made/ or disputes raised by other complainants. In support of the O.P.s contentions, Ld. Counsel relied upon following cases:
- State Bank of India Vs. K.K. Bhalla decided on 7th April, 2011 by NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 3182 of 2008.
- The Manager, State Bank of India & Vs. Prabhat Biswas decided on 17th April, 2013, by SCDRC in SC Case No. FA/431/2011.
- State Bank of India Vs. Om Prakash Saini decided on 18th January, 2013, by NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 2382 of 2012.
- Dr. Brahm Sharma Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. decided on 16 Sep, 2014, by NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 4786 of 2012.
- Suman Singh Vs. Sbop decided on 16th March, 2015, by SCDRC in First Appeal No. 569 of 2011
- Sh. Kayamuddin Vs. Axis Bank & Anr. decided on 2nd November, 2017, by SCDRC in First Appeal No. 631/2014
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and the 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 ATM 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. Sometime machine may fail. But in this present case as a civil matter the complainant has to prove this case by preponderance of evidence and we have limited scope in the summary trial. No documents have been filed by the complainant except evidence on affidavit to prove his claim. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant is unable to prove his case and as such he is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 06.04.18 and admitted on 19.04.18. This Commission 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 orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the instant complaint case No. CC/60/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
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.
