IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 39/S/2015. DATED : 13.09.2017.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBER : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.
COMPLAINANT 1. : SRI SOURAV GHOSH,
S/o Swapan Kumar Ghosh,
224 Bipin Paul Sarani, College Para,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.
O.Ps. 1. : BRANCH MANAGER,
United Bank of India (U.B.I),
Hill Cart Road, Siliguri,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.
2. : DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
United Bank of India (U.B.I),
Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Bhupen Das, Advocate.
FOR THE OP Nos.1 & 2 : Sri Ashis Das, Advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was maintaining a joint account along with his father Sri Swapan Kumar Ghosh being Saving Bank Account No.0237014480897 with the OP No.1 United Bank of India, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling. The complainant also got issued ATM card. On 02.09.2014 at about 7-32 p.m. the complainant swiped his ATM card for withdrawal of a sum of a Rs.200/- only from one of the United Bank of India ATM counter near College Para (beside Mamata Store) vide ATM No.4213190237041227 but due to some technical problem in the ATM, the transaction has failed and as a result the money did not come out from the ATM but the amount was deducted vide Transaction ID No.000000137747. On the next date i.e., on 03.09.2014 the complainant went to the OP No.1 United Bank of India, Hill Cart Road for updating his passbook and found that on 02.09.2014 two transactions were shown through ATM and the OP No.1 bank has deducted total amount of Rs.2,200/- from the complainant’s account. The first transaction has been shown at 19:32:00 (07-32) p.m. and a sum of Rs.2,000/- was deducted and after one minute at 19:33 (07-33 p.m.) again Rs.200/- was deducted from the account of the complainant. Complainant immediately lodged a written complaint to the Branch Manager of OP No.1 stating all the facts which was duly accepted by the bank vide docket No.CRM24614247393. Thereafter the complainant visited the bank of OP No.1 once again but the OP No.1 did not credit the said amount to the account of the complainant. On 13.10.2014 the complainant demanded for the view of ATM Log report and cash short excess certificate but instead of solving the problem the Branch Manager of OP No.1 made ill behaviour with the complainant. Thereafter, on 30.01.2015 the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice to the Branch Manager as well as the Divisional Manager of UBI, Pradhan Nagar which was duly received by the OPs and the OPs also sent a legal notice to the complainant denying all allegations brought against them. The said legal notice contained a customer complaint status verification statement which was totally forged and morphed. The incident took place on 02.09.2014 and the OPs took statement on 22.01.2015 at about 7-45 p.m. which proved that the Branch Manager is doing transaction which is forgery and also supported by Divisional Manager. Five months have already been passed, the OPs have not returned the amount to the complainant. Hence, this case.
The OP No.1 & 2 entered appearance and filed a written version denying all allegations brought against them and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable. It has been stated by the OPs that after receiving the complaint on 03.09.2014 from the complainant, the OP No.1 checked the transaction through ATM settlement port by ADC (Alternative Delivery Channel) and it shows on the same date is “pending” and on 10.09.2014 the report comes to the bank that the complaint is rejected i.e., there is no any excess or less cash at the ATM machine was found. The E.J. (Electronic Journal) shows that the “transaction successful in E.J.” and no overage found in CIA. The E.J. report also shows that on 02.09.2014 a sum of Rs.2,000/- only was withdrawn successfully from the United Bank ATM counter. It has been further stated that complainant used two ATM counter on the same day one of the United Bank’s ATM counter and another was other than UBI’s ATM counter which is found from J.P. report only. It has been further stated by the OPs that it is beyond the control of OPs to rectify/correct the E.J. (electronic journal) and the ADC is totally internet function and the OPs have no control of ADC. The J.P & E.J. report shows that the complainant had withdrawn the amount and the transaction was conducted through internet and the computer maintains the account of the ATM user. Hence, it is not true to say that the bank deducted the amount of Rs.2,200/- from the account of the complainant. The computer of the OP shows that amount of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.200/- only were withdrawn from the account of the complainant and it was automatically deducted/debited from the account of the complainant. The ATM user may make transaction from different ATM counters and the CIA, ADC through their E.J. and A.P. forwarded the transactions to the bank where the ATM user maintains his/her account. The statement of account shows that the complainant had withdrawn the above amount by two transactions through two ATM counter. Accordingly, complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents :-
1. United Bank of India bank pass book front page – ‘A’.
2. United Bank of India bank pass book statement – ‘B’.
3. Complain letter given to bank vide No.:CRM24614247393 dated 03/09.2014 – ‘C’.
4. Second complain letter given to bank dated 13.10.2014 – ‘D’.
5. Lawyer Notice – ‘E’.
6. Counter receipt of Registered with A/D - ‘F’.
7. Acknowledgement Card received - ‘G’.
OP has filed the following documents :-
1. Copy of Bank Search slip.
2. Copy of consumer complaint History through ADC.
3. Copy of EJ Report through CIA.
4. Copy of Bank statement.
Complainant has not filed evidence in-chief.
Complainant has filed written notes of argument.
OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed evidence in-chief.
OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed written argument.
Points for determination
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
This is the case of the complainant that the complainant and his father had a joint S/B Account with the OP No.1 Bank. On 02.09.2014 at about 7-32 p.m. complainant used ATM card for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.200/- from one of the ATM counter of United Bank of India near College Para (beside Mamata Store) but due to some technical problem in the ATM the transaction has failed and money did not come out from the ATM, but the amount was deducted vide transaction ID No.000000137747. On the next day i.e., on 03.09.2014 the complainant went to the OP No.1 bank for updating the passbook and found that on 02.09.2014 two transactions were taken place through ATM and the first transaction was shown at about 19:32:00 and an amount of Rs.2,000/- was deducted and second transaction was at 19:33:47 and an amount of Rs.200/- was deducted and thus a total amount of Rs.2,200/- was deducted from the complainant’s account by the OP No.1 bank. Complainant then lodged a complaint with the Branch Manager of OP No.1 and the OP No.1 accepted the written complaint vide docket No.CRM24614247393 but ultimately the aforesaid amount was not credited to the account of the complainant.
In this case the complainant has submitted the original passbook being Savings Bank Account No.0237014480897 lying with the OP bank and on scrutiny of the passbook we find that on 02.09.2014 two transactions were shown through ATM and the first transaction was at about 19:32:00 (7-32) p.m. and second transaction was on 19:33:47 (7-33) p.m. and by first transaction a sum of Rs.2,000/- and by second transaction a sum of Rs.200/- were deducted and thus a total sum of Rs.2,200/- was deducted from the account of the complainant. From the Xerox copy of the written complaint dated 03.09.2014 lodged with the OP No.1 we find that complainant has stated in the complaint petition that on 2nd September, 2014 at 7-32 p.m. he tried to withdraw Rs.200/- from College Para (beside Mamata Store) ATM counter of OPs bank but transaction was failed and he could not able to withdraw the money from that ATM and while updating the passbook it shows that an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been deducted from his account vide transaction ID of 000000137747 and he is totally unaware of it.
OP No.1 claimed that as soon as he received the complaint the OP No.1 checked the transaction through ATM settlement port by ADC (Alternative Delivery Channel) and it shows pending on the same date and on 10.09.2014 the report came to the bank i.e., OP stating that the complaint “REJECTED” and there was no any excess of less cash at the ATM machine was found. The Electronic Journal shows that transaction was successful in E.J. and no overage found in CIA. The E.J. report further shows that on 02.09.2014 a sum of Rs.2,000/- was withdrawn successfully. But fact remains that the complainant did not receive the said amount by way of punching the ATM card through the ATM machine of the OP. It further appears from the documents submitted by the complainant that a series of application were made by the complainant for Redressal of his grievance in respect of non-receipt and non-withdrawal of the money through the ATM machine of OP bank by using his valid ATM card, but unfortunately it has been shown in the passbook that a total sum of Rs.2,200/- has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant by two transactions. The complainant led evidence by way of affidavit in chief and his father also led evidence as PW No.2 and it has been specifically stated by the complainant that on 02.09.2014 he operated the ATM machine of OP’s bank for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.200/- but no money was received there from but he found that money was deducted and at the time of updating the passbook with his utter surprise he found that Rs.2,200/- has been withdrawn from his account.
From the statement of account relating to the savings bank account of the complainant it is evident that two transactions were made on 02.09.2014 within 1½ minutes gap and a total sum of Rs.2,200/- has been withdrawn, despite having possession of transaction register relating to the date of occurrence on 02.09.2014, the OPs did not submit any document to show how much money was kept in the ATM machine of the OPs College Pare (beside Mamata Store) ATM machine for clearance and how much money remains unused through the said ATM machine. Bank is the public utility service and when the ATM machine is running under the control of the concerned bank originated from the main office at Mumbai or Delhi obviously they have to maintain separate register in this regard and if the said register dated 02.09.2014 maintained and controlled by the OPs be placed for appreciation the truth would come out whether actually the amount of Rs.2,200/- in question was withdrawn by the complainant after punching his ATM card and if not the machine functioned properly due to the fault of the machinery or any kind of reason thereof, there must be report to maintain by the UBI ATM machine at College Para and Delhi Division or Mumbai Division. The OPs cannot deny their responsibilities by saying that they have no control and it was automatically deducted/debited from the account of the complainant and transaction was conducted through internet. When two consecutive transactions were shown through ATM within one and half minutes gap and when the amount was not withdrawn by the complainant, then it was the duty of the bank to find out actually how the amount was deducted and withdrawn. The OP also failed to show the CCTV footage to the complainant and did not take sufficient step to search out as to how the amount was deducted.
In view of above findings, we are of the view that the complainant has established his case by sufficient cogent evidence. The deficiency of service on the part of the OP is established. Accordingly, OP Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,200/- together with interest @ 6% to the complainant and the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.39/S/2015 is allowed on contest in part against the OPs, with cost.
The complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,200/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from 02.09.2014 till full realization from the OPs.
The complainant is further entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment from the OPs.
The complainant is further entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost from the OPs.
The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,200/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from 02.09.2014 till full realization by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the
Contd…..P/7
-:7:-
name of the complainant towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days from the date of this order.
The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.
Failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till full payment.
Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
