IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/69/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
13.04.18 27.04.18 12.06.19
Complainant: Sukumar Ghosh
S/O- Provakar Ghosh,
Vill- Ghanashyampur,
PO- Ujunia, PS- Salar,
Pin- 742401
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager,
State Bank Of India, Salar Branch
PO & PS- Salar,
Pin- 742187
2.The Regional Manager,
State Bank Of India
PO & PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Smt. Bidishya Sarkar.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 &2 : Sri. Satinath Chandra.
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 Sukumar Ghosh (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Salar Branch and Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant has a savings bank account bearing No.11319412425 with the OP No.1. On 21.11.17, at about 10.30 A.M. he attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs.20,000/- from an ATM center at station road. He tried to withdraw the money for 3-4 times but no amount had been withdrawn. At that time he had a balance of Rs.1,66,000/- in his savings account but when he left the ATM room he received a message debiting Rs.40,000/- from his account. As the amount was not reversed to his account within 24 hours, he filed an application to the OP No.1 who assured him that the amount would be credited to his account. The Complainant lodged a GDE on 20.01.18 and filed the complaint before Consumer Affairs Department and ultimately he filed the case praying for compensation of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 10% Per annum and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and cost of litigation.
The OPs contested the case by filing written version on 07.09.18, contending that the case is not maintainable. The OPs denied the allegations of the Complainant. It is the case of the OPs that the ATM equipment does not accept anything except ATM card and pin and pin is like a password and it is only within the knowledge of the card holder. Any withdrawal through ATM cannot be possible without ATM card and secret four digit pin. For ATM, there are two sections, one is related to the Bank’s ledger through CBS and another is related to ATM Switch Center, Belapur, Maharastra. After getting valid instruction from the card holder, the system automatically gets connected with the specific account and debited the demanded amount subject to availability of balance and simultaneously the machine delivers cash and said delivery is also exclusively under the control of ATM Switch Center, Belapur, Maharastra. The OPs made enquiry relating to the complaint but no difference was found between the record of his bank account and record of the ATM Switch Center, Belapur, Maharastra. The OPs relies on the documents marked as annexure A (JP Logs) relating to so many transactions held on 21.11.17 including the transactions made by the Complainant. It is clear from the system generated JP Logs that the response code of alleged transactions was Zero that means the transaction was successful and cash has been delivered against using the ATM card of the Complainant. That proper enquiry has been made after getting the complaint and no excess cash has been found from the date of previous cash loading to the date of next cash loading into the ATM. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired the services of the OPNo.1 for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as he hired services of the OP for consideration.
Point No.2
The Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant has received no amount on 21.11.17 though he attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs.20,000/- for more than once. It is argued that the Complainant lodged complaint with the OPs but of no result. It is urged that the OPs have deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum. He submits that it is the duty of the OPs to stop hacking of money from the account of the complainant and the Bank cannot absolve its responsibility in compensating the complainant.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OPs submit that the Complainant is a consumer under the OP No.1 and it appears from the JP Logs (annexure-A) the transaction was successful and the OP withdrew a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 21.11.17 that on 11.23 A.M. He further argues that the ATM is run by a system generated machine and it controlled by ATM Switch Center, Belapur, Maharastra. It is urged that no human manipulation is possible for any transaction in ATM and no transaction can be made without ATM card and secret pin number which is exclusively within the knowledge of the card holder. He submits that the OPs have no deficiency in service and the Complainant has not entitled to get any relief. He draws our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble west Bengal State Commission in Manager, ATM, Deptt. And others Vs Sri Shyamal Dutta in F.A. 590/2014 dated 09.09.16.
Perused the written complaint, written version, evidence, documents filed by both sides. It is the allegations of the Complainant that he attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs.20,000/- for 3-4 times but of no result. It is argued that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was debited from his account in spite of unsuccessful attempts on 21.11.16. The Ld. Advocate contends that the OPs have deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get amount of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum and compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the OPs. The OPs have relied on JP Logs dated 21..11.17 (Annexure-A). The JP Log is a system generated document. It is true that no transaction can be made through ATM without ATM card and secret four digit pin number. With due regard to the decision referred by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs, we think that the said decision is applicable in the present case.
The operation of ATM is controlled by ATM Switch Center, Belapur, Maharastra and the JP Log (Annexure-A) reveals that transaction of the Complainant for withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- was successful. Moreover, no transaction in ATM is possible if no ATM card is inserted in the machine followed by entering secret four digit PIN.We find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the Complainant is not able to establish that the OPs have any deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint is not entitled to get relief.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 13.04.18 and admitted on 27.04.18. 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/69/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs 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.
