IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/191/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

     10.11.17                                      17.11.17                              01.08.19

Complainant: Sabir Ahammed,

S/o Ramjan Sk. Vill-Batikamari,

PO-Bhagirathpur, PS-Domkal,

 Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742406

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

Juginda Branch, PO&PS-Domkal,

Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742406

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant            : Sri. Ranjit Nath.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : Sri. Sankar Prasad Saha.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

  This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Sabir Ahammed (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Juginda Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant is a consumer of the OP  as he has a savings account No. 3246617523. The Complainant received an ATM card against his savings account on 01.07.17. The full sister of the Complainant went to an ATM counter on 01.07.17 at Domkal Fish Market when an unknown person told him that pin code number of the ATM had been changed and asked her to type the pin code number in the ATM machine. During that time the said unknown person changed the ATM card and withdrew an amount of Rs.20,000/- and left the place. The full sister of the Complainant lodged a GD being No.55 dated 01.07.17 with the Domkal PS and asked the OP to block the ATM card. The OP blocked the ATM card at 4.41 P.M.  In spite of  that an amount of Rs.9,500/- was withdrawn on 01.07.17 at 8.00 P.M. for which the Complainant requested the OP to provide him CCTV footage. The OP did not provide CCTV footage of the alleged transaction of Rs.9,500/-. The OP also did not refund Rs.9,500/- to  his account. The OP has deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Complainant prayed for a direction upon the OP to refund Rs.9,500/- in his account and compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.

            The OP contested the case by filing written version on 14.02.19 contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the specific case of the OP that a sum of Rs.9,500/- had been withdrawn through ATM on 01.07.17 at about 3.35 P.M. and the ATM card had been blocked at 4.10 P.M. at the instruction of the sister of the Complainant. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point No.1

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has not taken any part in hearing of argument.

       The Ld. Advocate for the OP stated nothing on this point.

            On perusal of the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and the documents filed by both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired the services  of the OP.

Point No.2

            The Complainant has not taken any part in hearing of argument.

      On going through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and xerox copies of documents, we find that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point No.3&4

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has not taken any part in hearing of argument.

       The Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant has asserted that Rs.9,500/- had been withdrawn through ATM from this account on 01.07.17 at 8.00 P.M., in spite of the fact that ATM card was blocked at 4.10 P.M. It is urged that the OP has filed xerox copy  of ATM iAlerts from which it appears that Rs.9,500/- was withdrawn from ATM counter on 01.07.17 at 15.35.11 hours. He argues that the Complainant handed over the ATM card to his sister who is not authorised to operate the ATM and the sister of the Complainant also did not take proper care of the ATM card resulting change of ATM card with an unknown person on 01.07.17. He further argues that the OP has no deficiency in service and the OP has blocked  the ATM card on 01.07.17 at 4.10 P.M.

            We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence filed by the Complainant, written argument filed by the OP and xerox copies of documents filed by both sides. It is the version of the Complainant that he handed over his ATM card to his full sister and change of ATM card with an unknown person was due to intervention of an unknown person. It is the allegation of the Complainant that the ATM card was blocked at 4.10 P.M. on 01.07.17 at the instance of his sister but the amount of Rs.9,500/- was withdrawn at 8.00 P.M. on 01.07.17. It is alleged that the OP has deficiency in service.

            On a careful consideration over the materials on record, specially copy of ATM iAlerts submitted by the OP, we find that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn at 15.34.24 hours and Rs.9,500/- was withdrawn at 15.35.11 hours on 01.07.17. Therefore, it clear that the amount of Rs.9,500/- was withdrawn through ATM card from the savings account of the Complainant at 3.35 p.m. when the ATM card was active and the card was blocked at 4.10 p.m..

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, we think that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 10.11.17 and admitted on 17.11.17 . 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 orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

  Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                 Ordered

that the complaint Case No.CC/191/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP 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.

           President

Member                                                                                         President.