IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/76/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
27.04.2018 07.05.2018 16.03.2023
Complainant: Md. Abul Halim,
S/o – Md. Mufazzal Hossain,
Vill – Radhakrishnapur,
P.O.- Sekhalipur
P.S.- Lalgola
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin- 742148
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Lalgola Branch,
Vill- Outer Ring Road,
P.O. + P.S.- Lalgola,
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin- 742148
2. Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
15, Square East.
P.O. + P.S.- Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad
Pin- 742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Self
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : Satinath Chandra
.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. ajay kumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Md. Abul Halim (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lalgola Branch and Anr. (here in after referred to as the O.P.s ) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant transferred an amount in tune of Rs. 60,000/-( 2000 note X 30 pieces) from ATM Counter under SBI, Branch Lalgola on 27.03.2018 at 08.08 P.M. in favour of A/C Name Rejaul Sekh, A/C No. 34301526687 and the complainant received a slip but it was not a successful slip. Afterthat he left out from the ATM Counter because already he experienced this type of incident. On the next date i.d. 30.03.2018 he came to know that the said transaction was not completed but that day the Bank was closed. Then on 31.03.2018 he communicated with the bank of the said incident and he came to know from them that one Mr. Biswajit who was in charge of ATM Function was absent for that day. Then he wrote an application. On 01.04.2018 the bank was closed. Thereafter, the complainant further visited the bank on 02.04.2018 and he communicated with Mr. Biswajit over telephone who asked the complainant to revisit the bank on 03.04.2018 and as per his advice the Complainant again visited 03.04.2018 and submitted his application. On 04.04.2018 at about 4.30 PM the Manager showed a report to the Complainant and said that after transaction the sutter of the ATM Machine was opened and the Complainant left the ATM Room. After showing the report the Complainant got shock and repeatedly requested the O.P. Bank to return his money but in vain.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before this District Commission praying for an order directing the O.P.s .to pay Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- towards harassment, physical injury and mental agony.
Defence Case
The O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 are contesting the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The specific case of the O.P.s is that the Complainant intimated the matter on 03.04.2018 to the Bank at first. Bank made inquiry from all corners and collected online system generated records from data base from which it appears that the machine accepted cash and rejected the entire amount. In case of unsuccessful transaction the recycler machine also issues slip by which it is ascertained that the transaction was not successful.
That the Complainant left the ATM room without getting proper slip as such as the transaction was not successful and as such he did not get slip of successful transaction which the Complainant has admitted in his complaint also.
The O.P. has collected a system generated online print out which is annexed with Annexure A and the same be treated as part of the W/V.
The O.P. bank after receiving the Complaint on 03.04.2018 collected the CCTV footage and called the Complainant to show the footage. The Complainant came to the bank and watched the video footage where it was crystal clear that the Complainant was so hurry to leave the ATM room and at the same time another person came into the room and collected notes from the cash accepter and left the ATM room.
There is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.s. The O.P.s pray for rejection of the plaint.
On the basis of the complaint and written version 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. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake convenience and brevity of discussion.
The point to be noted is that argument was heard on behalf of the Complainant on 28.02.2023 and the argument was heard on 15.03.2023 on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that he is a consumer to the O.P. bank as he maintains an account with the said O.P. Bank. On this point Ld. Advocate for the O.P.s submitted that he had nothing to say on this point. After hearing both sides we perused the materials on record. Facts and Circumstances suggest that the Complainant is a consumer to the O.P. Bank. Such being the position we are of the view that the point no. 1 be decided in favour of the Complainant. Thus the point no. 1 is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Ld. Advocate for the OPs submitted before this District Commission that the Complainant left the ATM room without getting proper slip as such the transaction was not successful so, he did not get slip of successful transaction, which he has admitted in his complaint. We perused the complaint we find that the Complainant did not get successful slip.
The O.P.s have submitted a document which has been marked Annexure A. It appears from the Annexure A that the disputed transaction was started on 29.03.2018 vide transaction no. 5548. That at 08.08.29 PM the shutter of the machine was opened. Thereafter, in several times notes were given and the same were rejected and finally the cash acceptor of the machine was opened to remove the notes and presented the notes at 08.09.39 pm on that day. All the stages of transaction have been categorically time wise recorded in online system automatically and the same is available in the Annexure-A.
Ld. Advocate for the OPs had submitted that the Opp. Party bank after receiving the Complaint on 03.04.2018 collected the CCTV footage and called the Complainant to show the footage. The Complainant came to the bank and watched the video footage where it was crystal clear that the Complainant was so hurry to leave the ATM room and at the same time another person came into the room and collected notes from the cash accepter and left the ATM room.
In the instant case the standard of proof is the preponderance of probability.
Keeping in mind the submissions of both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view the Complainant has failed to establish that there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.s and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 27.04.2018 and admitted on 07.05.2018. 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 complaint Case No. CC/76/2018 be and the same is dismissed against O.P.s 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.
President
Member President.
