Haryana

Karnal

231/13

Ram Dhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager State Bank Of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Deepak Sachdewa

25 Jul 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.231 of 2013

                                                          Date of instt.14.05.2013

                                                          Date of decision:27.03.2015

 

Ram Dhan son of Sardara Ram r/o House No.2312, Gali No.4, Vikas Phoosgarh Road, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

1.The Manager, State Bank of  Patiala, Railway Road, Karnal.

2.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 he was having saving account No. 10868402041 with the  OP No.2  and on 1.09.2012 the complainant used ATM Machine of OP No.1 and tried to withdraw Rs.500/- from the ATM Machine. The amount of Rs.500/- came out and the complainant collected the same. Thereafter, the complainant pressed the cancellation button and the ATM Machine did not issue the balance slip. Thereafter on 2.9.2012 the complainant went to ATM situated at Nehru Palace, Karnal  and tried to withdraw the amount of Rs.1000/- and the amount came out and the complainant collected the same and when the balance slip came out, the complainant was shocked to see that an amount of Rs.20000/- has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant. The complainant immediately informed the OP No.2 and the officials of the OP No.2 assured the complainant to redress his grievance but 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.

 

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 application dated 7.9.2012 was made by the complainant to the answering OP no.1 and the CCTV footage was provided to the police on the application of the complainant. It was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of answering OP No.1 and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

                   The OP No.2 has also 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 the present complaint was liable to be dismissed.

 

                   On merits, it was contended  the complainant never contacted to the bank officials relating to the alleged incident.

 

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 he was having saving account No. 10868402041 with the  OP No.2 and on 1.09.2012 the complainant used ATM Machine of OP No.1 and tried to withdraw Rs.500/- from the ATM Machine  and the amount came out and the complainant collected the same and the complainant pressed the cancellation button and the ATM Machine did not issue the balance slip. Thereafter on 2.9.2012 the complainant went to ATM situated at Nehru Palace, Karnal  and tried to withdraw the amount of Rs.1000/- and the amount came out and the complainant collected the same and when the balance slip came out, the complainant was shocked to see that an amount of Rs.20000/- has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant. The complainant immediately informed the OP No.2 and the officials of the OP No.2 assured the complainant to redress his grievance but ultimately amount was not returned.

        The complainant moved applications Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 to the Ops. Photo copy of the pass book Ex.C5 has also been placed on the file.

                   However, as per the contentions of the Ops, the complainant used the ATM Machine and the amount was disbursed to him as shown in the J.P.Roll. The Ops have also contended that the CC TV Footage was also made available to the police on the application of the complainant.

                   The OP No.2 has also asserted that the transaction was successful and the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.20, 000/- on 1.09.2012 and after enquiry no extra amount was found in the ATM.

 

5.                Therefore, after going through the  evidence and circumstances of the case, it is evident that  the complainant on 1.09.2012 used the ATM Machine of OP No.1 and withdrew the amount of Rs.20000/- and the amount was disbursed to him and the transaction was successful. The said transaction dated 1.09.2012 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.  

                   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 Commission 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 report 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.

                         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.  There is no other complaint regarding irregular functioning of the said ATM machine. Therefore, when the J.P.Log 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:19.3.2015                                                                             

                                                              (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:24.3.2015                                                                             

                                                              (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, thepresent 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:27.3.2015                                                                             

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.