C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/35
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Nivedita Dutta,
W/o Lt. Binoy Dutta,
EE-43/8, Sector 2, Salt Lake City
Kolkata – 91
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) Branch Manager,
United Bank of India
Mayukh Bhaban Branch
Salt Lake City, Kol – 91
2) Branch Manager
United Bank of India,
Nabadwip Branch,
P.O. & P.S. Nabadwip, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 03rd January, 2014
: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell are as below:-
The claimant Smt. Nivedita Dutta lodged this case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Mayukh Bhawan Branch, and Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Nabadwip Branch.
The savings account No. of the complainant with the OP is 1096010005487 with ATM facility on 13.03.13. Nivedita Came to Nabadwip Branch and wanted to withdraw Rs. 25,000/- and went to Nabadwip Branch on United Bank of India (OP No. 2) to give a cheque and she was advised to withdraw the amount by using ATM card from Bank ATM’s counter. Accordingly, the complainant used her ATM card to withdraw Rs.25,000/- but the transaction could not be completed as the machine gave a message “amount too large”. Then the complainant returned home on 02.04.13 and found in the pass book that her money amounting to Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- was shown withdraw on 13.03.2013 from ATM counter, Nabadwip Branch. She immediately complaint in writing along with ATM slips to look into the matter. The cause of action arose on 13.02.2013. The cause of action arose on 13.02.13. The OPs have enough knowledge to the incident but the OP peacefully and negligently kept the matter pending. The complainant suffered a pecuniary loss of Rs.25,000/- which is wrongly debited from her account. Against the unsuccessful action of ATM she is entitled to get Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and the cost of the suit.
OPs filed written version on 08.11.13 wherein all the allegations of the complainant have been denied on the basis of the documents exhibit No. 01 to 12.
It has been pleaded that the complainant successfully operated the machine on 13.03.13 at 13:35 with ATM card No. 42131910960324907 (exhibit -4) at 13:40 on 13.03.13 with the same ATM card Rs. 5,000/- withdrew by the complainant. Thus, the complainant successfully operated the machine to withdraw Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- on 13.03.13 hence, the case is not maintainable and it should be dismissed with cost.
POINTS FOR DECESION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Has she got any bonafide claim against the Bank /Ops?
- Point No. 2: What other relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
The following documents were filed by the claimant
Exhibit A -Copy of passbook
Exhibit B - ATM transaction slip
Exhibit C - an application of Nivedita addressed to the United Bank of India with a request to encash the amount of Rs. 25,000/-.
The following documents were filed by the OP Exhibit 1 to 12
Exhibit 1 – A Letter dtd. 14.03.13 to the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Mayukh Bhaban by the Nivedita Dutta.
Exhibit 2 – An email by the AGM, Mayukh Bhawan Branch
Exhibit 3 – An email dtd. 25.03.13 by the United Bank of India
Exhibit 4 – A transaction slip
Exhibit 5 – An email dtd. 03.04.13 by the United Bank of India
Exhibit 6 – An email dtd. 03.04.13 by the United Bank of India
Exhibit 7 - A letter by the United Bank of India, Nabadwip Branch
Exhibit 8 – Transaction slip dtd. 13.03.13
Exhibit 9 – Transaction slip on 13.03.13
Exhibit 10 - Transaction slip on 13.03.13
Exhibit 11 - A letter dtd. 13.06.13 from the United Bank of India, Mayukh Bhavan Bhaban to Smt. Nibedita Dutta,
Exhibit 12 – A Registered letter with A/D to the complainant by the United Bank of India, Mayukh Bhaban.
We have heard the arguments of both parties at length.
Sri Subhasish Roy argued for the complainant while Sri Aninda Mukherjee has argued for the OPs / Branch Managers.
It is admitted position that the complainant is a consumer having his account with the OPs.
A holder of ATM is also a consumer and hence the complainant is a consumer in the instant case.
The complainant has claimed that she had not withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.5,000/-. There may be case whether the card of the ATM was used by the complainant’s closed person who knows the secret number (PIN). Exhibit 4 has clearly and unmistakably established that by way of 2 successful operation of ATM on 13.12.13 at 13:35 hour and 13:40 hours with the help of the ATM card of the complainant Rs.20,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-= Rs. 25,000/- was withdrawn by two successful operations of the machine on the same day. Hence, it is not in the fit case of the opinion to say that the claim of the complainant against bank is bona fide.
As the OPs have proved on the basis of 12 exhibits beyond doubt that the claim of the consumer / complainant is not bona fide the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Withdrawal of the sum of Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- was rightly shown in the passbook of the complainant (exhibit –A). Hence, all the points are disposed of against the complainant.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/13/35 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
