IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/102/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
29.07.2019 05.08.2019 03.05.2024
Complainant: Anup Kumar Banerjee,
Residing at Village Salinda,
Via Salar,
P.O.- Salinda,
Police Station Salar,
District- Murshidabad,
Pin-742401
-Vs-
Opposite 1) Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Salar Branch,
Post Office Salar,
Police Station Salar,
District Murshidabad,
Pin-742401
2) Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Kandi Branch,
Post Office Kandi,
Police Station Kandi,
District Murshidabad,
Pin-742137
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Subhanjan Sengupta
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 Anup Kumar Banerjee (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, State Bank of India and Anr. (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 had punched his ATM card twice at the ATM counter at Salar Station Road. But for two consecutive times neither any cash nor any slip came out from the teller machine. After few days when the Complainant went for updating his pass-book he found that Rs. 20,000/- had already been deducted from his account. Then and there the Complainant brought the matter with the cash officer of the O.P. No. 1. Immediately complaint was registered and it was informed that the matter would be solved within 5/7 days. But till date the matter was not solved.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for an order directing the O.P.s to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant.
Defence Case
O.P. is contesting this case by filing written version wherein all material allegations have been denied by them. The specific case of the O.P.s is that ATM is a completely system generated computerized automated machine and there is no scope of manual interference. In 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 got connected with specific account and debited the demanded amount subject to availability of balance and simultaneously the machine delivers cash and said delivery is exclusively under the control of ATM Switch Center, Belapur, Maharastra. This O.P. has made enquiry relating to the complaint but no difference was found in between the record of her bank account and the records of ATM Switch Center, Belapur, Maharastra.
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 negligence or deficiency of service from the part of the O.P.s. So, the complaint is liable to be rejected against the O.P.s.
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 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
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer to the O.P. Ld. Advocate for the O.P. raises no objection on this point. However, we peruse the materials on record. Keeping in mind the submissions advanced by the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the O.P. The point No. 1 is thus decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that on 02.03.2019 the Complainant had punched his ATM card twice at the ATM counter at Salar Station Road. But for two consecutive times neither any cash nor any slip came out from the teller machine. After few days when the Complainant went for updating his pass-book he found that Rs. 20,000/- had already been deducted from his account. Then and there the Complainant brought the matter with the cash officer of the O.P. No. 1. Immediately complaint was registered and it was informed that the matter would be solved within 5/7 days. But till date the matter was not solved.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P.s submits at the time of argument that ATM is a completely system generated computerized automated machine and there is no scope of manual interference. In 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 got connected with specific account and debited the demanded amount subject to availability of balance and simultaneously the machine delivers cash and said delivery is exclusively under the control of ATM Switch Center, Belapur, Maharastra. This O.P. has made enquiry relating to the complaint but no difference was found in between the record of her bank account and the records of ATM Switch Center, Belapur, Maharastra.
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.
In support of his contentions he has filed copies of transaction dated 03.02.2019 made by the Complainant. Here we find that the response code is 000 indicating successful transaction and Rs. 20000/- was withdrawn. He has also filed copies of No Excess Cash Certificate against the said transaction.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the submissions advanced by the parties we are of the view that the Complainant has failed to prove that there was deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.s. Such being the position we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 29.07.2019 and admitted on 05.08.2019. 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/102/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
