Sri Sudhakar Senapothi    - Member.       

Complainant Dolamani Rout has filed this case u/s 35 of CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not attending to his complain regarding withdrawal of money from his account and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- which has been debited from his account and to pay cost and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is having an ATM card bearing No. 6521636435005051 issued by the Union Bank of India, Nuapada Branch. On 08.09.2021 at about 6.54 a.m., he attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 8,000/- from his account. But, the transaction failed.  But, he noticed that a sum of Rs. 8,000/- has been debited from his account and no message came to him even though his SMS service was active. Immediately, the complainant reported the matter to the bank authorities. But, it yielded no result. Finally, on 09.05.2022, the complainant submitted a written report to OP No. 1. But, there was no result for which he filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.

2.           Notice was issued to the Opposite Parties and OP No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement. The OP No.2 preferred not to appear or challenge the allegations of the complainant in any manner.

3.           The OP No. 1 in his written statement stated that the complainant had used his ATM card in SBI ATM counter vide counter ID No. S1BW000142005 near Telipada, main road, Nuapada at 6.54 a.m. and received a sum of Rs. 8000/-. He has taken false plea that the cash was not received from the ATM counter. Withdrawal has been rightly debited from his above mentioned account. The SMS service was not active with the account of the complainant and no SMS was received by him. The complainant has neither informed the matter immediately to the Bank authorities after non-receipt of the withdrawal money on the same day or thereafter. At a very belated stage, he filed the complaint on 09.05.2022 which speaks of his falsity, inaction and carelessness. Since he has not sustained any economic loss or mental harassment from him, the case against him be dropped.

4.           It is the case of the complainant that he has attempted to withdraw the money from the ATM counter installed and maintained by SBI. If the transaction failed for any reason and money was not dispensed, he should have immediately brought it to the knowledge of SBI authorities and also immediately to the knowledge of Union Bank of India. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant had immediately lodged complaint to his banker i.e. OP No. 1 or OP No. 2 from whom the money was being withdrawn. In the absence of any complaint immediately, no amount of deficiency can be attributed to the OPs. It is only after a period of around 8 months, the complainant lodged this complaint before OP No. 1. But, there is nothing on record to show that he has lodged any complaint before OP No. 2. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the complainant was very much negligent in his own action and therefore cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is dismissed against the OP No. 1 on contest and ex-parte against OP No. 2. Parties to bear their own cost.