Jyoti filed a consumer case on 25 Jul 2014 against Branch Manager State Bank Of Patiala in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is 230/13 and the judgment uploaded on 21 Apr 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No. 230 of 2013
Date of instt.: 14.05.2013
Date of decision:27.03.2015
Jyoti wife of Ritesh Kumar r/o House No.19, Sant Nagar, Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
1.The Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Railway Road, Karnal.
1.The Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 12, Karnal.
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.
Present:- Sh.Deepak Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the Ops.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that she was having saving account No. 20013244693 with the OP No.2 and on 31.8.2012 at 9:30 Sh.Ritesh husband of the complainant used ATM Machine of OP No.1 and tried to withdraw Rs.20,000/- from the ATM Machine but the amount could not be withdrawn . After some time, the complainant checked the balance and was shocked to know that the amount of Rs.20,000/- has been deducted from his account. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP No.2 and made written complaints vide Ex.C4 and the officials of OP No.2 assured the complainant to redress the grievance of the complainant but the officials of the Ops continued to postpone the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately amount was not returned which tantamounts to deficiency in services. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint. Besides, he has placed on the file copy of the application Ex.C4 and statement of account Ex.C5
2. The OP No.1 filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable and that the complaint was not valued for the purposes of court fee and as such thepresent complaint was liable to be dismissed.
On merits, it was contended that the transaction dated 31.8.2012 was a successful transaction made by inserting the ATM card on 31.8.2012 and the amount of Rs.20,000/- was disbursed to the complainant. It has been also contended that the complaint was made on 7.9.2012 and the CCTV Footage were shown to the complainant. Sh.N.N.Mathur, Manager of OP No.1 has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.
.
The OP No.2 filed its separate written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable and that the complaint was not valued for the purposes of court fee and as such thepresent complaint was liable to be dismissed.
On merits, it was contended that transaction made on 31.8.2012 for withdrawal of Rs.20, 000/- by the complainant was a successful transaction as shown in the EJ log Report and there was no deficiency in services on the part of answering OP No.2 and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that she was having saving account No. 20013244693 with the OP No.2 and on 31.8.2012 husband of the complainant used ATM Machine of OP No.1 and tried to withdraw Rs.20,000/- from the ATM Machine but the amount could not be withdrawn . Thereafter the complainant checked her balance and an amount of Rs.20,000/- was found deducted from his account. The complainant on 7.09.2012 approached the OP No.2 and made written complaints vide Ex4 and the officials of OP No.2 assured the complainant to redress the grievance of the complainant but the officials of the Ops continued to postpone the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately amount was not returned which tantamounts to deficiency in services. The complainant has also placed photo copy of the pass book Ex.C5 showing the withdrawal of Rs.20000/- on the file.
However, as per the contentions of the OP No.1, the complainant used the ATM Machine on 31.8.2012 for withdrawal of Rs.20, 000/- and the transaction was successful. Meaning thereby the complainant had withdrawn the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,000/- as shown in the J.P.Roll.
The OP No.2 has also asserted that the transaction was successful and the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.20, 000/- on 31.8.2009 and after enquiry no extra amount was found in the ATM. The Ops have also attached copy of J.P.Log Ex.R2 in order to ascertain as to whether the afore stated transaction of the complainant was successful or not.
5. Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the complainant on 31.8.2012 used the ATM Machine of OP No.1 for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- but the said amount was not allegedly received. The said transaction dated 31.8.2012 has been reflected in the J.P.Log Ex.R2. Therefore, there is voluminous evidence on the file to show that the complainant used the ATM card for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- from the ATM Machine of OP No.1 and the said transaction was successful.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case CC Footage was supplied by the Ops to the Police and as per enquiry report of the police the CC Footage was examined by the police in the presence of the complainant and the police came to the conclusion that none else except the consumer has withdrawn the amount from the account of the complainant as shown in Ex.C3.
7. Moreover, the Hon,ble State Commission in the appeal No.227 of 2013 decided on 23.5.2013 titled Bank of India Versus Ashok Kumar
has held as under :
“Even otherwise, the ATM card remains with the possession of the complainant alongwith its secret number and nobody can withdraw any amount without secret code number.”
Same view has been taken by the Hon,ble National Commission in case State Bank of India Vs.K.K.Bhalla in revision petition no. 3182 of 2008 (2011(2) RCR 292 (NC).
Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , U.T.Chandigarh in case Shri Sarabjit Singh Lahri Versus PNB and another, 2003(1) CPC page 425.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above referred authority and in view of the fact that Pin code is a secret and the ATM is also a very personal document of the customer and without using the secret pin code and the ATM card, the transaction cannot be completed. Therefore, as per J.P.Log Ex.R2 which has reflected the transaction successful, it has to be held that the complainant used the ATM card by inserting secret pin code and thus the transaction was completed. .
8. It is pertinent to mention here that there is nothing on the file in order to infer that on the particular date the particular machine was not functioning properly. It is also pertinent to mention here that the transaction was done by Ritesh husband of the complainant but affidavit of said Ritesh has not been produced in the
evidence in order to substantiate the allegation that the said amount was not disbursed by the said ATM Machine. Therefore, when the J.P.Log Ex.R2 has shown the transaction successful then in the absence of any contrary evidence on the file, it could not be assumed that the said amount was not withdrawn by the complainant and as such we hold that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.
7. Therefore, as a sequel to our above findings, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 27.03.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Sh.Deepak Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the Ops.
Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 24.3.2015.
Announced
dated: 19.03.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Sh.Deepak Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the Ops.
Remaining arguments not advanced. Adjournment sought. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 27.3.2015.
Announced
dated: 24.03.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Sh.Deepak Sachdeva Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the Ops.
Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 27.03.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.