C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/08
COMPLAINANT : Chanchal Sarkar
S/o Late Shyamalendu Sarkar
Vill. 20/B, S.K. Box Road,
Banashree Para
P.O. Krishnagar,
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP: 1) Branch Manager
Krishnagar Branch
Union Bank of India,
Utsab Complex,
21, Ananta Hari Mitra Lane,
Nedierpara, P.O. Krishnagar
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 30th June, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is an account holder of the OP bank having savings bank account No. 612902010000007 and he has an ATM Card also. It is his further case that on 24.06.10 he went to the ATM counter of the bank to withdraw Rs. 3,000/-. Though he did not get any amount in hand from the counter, but the ATM slip showed a subtraction of Rs. 3,000/- from the total amount of the petitioner. On 24.08.10 he sent a complaint in respect of the matter to the OP with a request to solve the problem and to adjust Rs. 3,000/- in his favour, but to no effect. Again on 21.09.10 he sent another letter to the OP stating the above fact. Thereafter on 20.11.10 he also sent a letter to the OP with regard to adjust the deduction amount of Rs. 3,000/- with his amount. In reply to that the OP intimated him that the JP log was genuine and the OP was not in a position to help the petitioner. It is his submission also that the OP could easily detect it through the running camera of the ATM counter whether actually he got the amount or not, but the OP did not take any step. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature and it is his submission that it is not at all correct that the complainant did not get any cash of Rs. 3,000/- from the ATM counter on 24.06.10. Rather he submits that as the complainant received the said amount so the ATM slip showed Rs. 3,000/- as subtraction from the total amount of the complainant. The JP log of the ATM is genuine and it also showed that the cash was taken by the complainant. He also submits that the camera of the ATM counter of the OP bank was not functioning due to some technical fault since May, 2010 which came to knowledge of the complainant and taking advantage of that the complainant has mentioned about the function of the camera. The complainant was silent for a long time and made a complaint before the OP on 24.08.10 though incident happened on 24.06.10. He remained silent for about 02 months, though during this period several transactions were made by the complainant using the ATM card. Therefore he has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against the OP.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written version filed by the OP along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly the complainant has a savings bank account with the OP bank having ATM facility. It is also available on record that on 24.06.10 the complainant went to the ATM counter to withdraw Rs. 3,000/-. The complainant’s specific allegation is that though he did not get the money but the ATM slip showed subtraction of Rs. 3,000/- from the total amount of the complainant. Admittedly, there is no document on the side of the complainant to establish that he did not get the money. Complainant has relied on the camera of the ATM counter to establish his case, but from the written version filed by the OP it is available that the camera was out of order on the relevant time. In support of the complainant’s claim PW-2 has stated that he was outside of the ATM counter and he knows that the complainant did not get any money from the ATM counter but Rs. 3,000/- was subtracted from the total amount of the petitioner. Practically, it is not possible for the PW-2 to see whether actually the complainant got the money or not as he was outside the ATM counter. He has not stated even that the complainant told him to the extent that the complainant did not get the money from the ATM counter. From the document filed by the OP it is available that after 24.06.10 up to 24.08.10 the complainant used the ATM card and withdrew money on several dates which he admitted at the time of argument also. But he lodged the complaint before the OP after a lapse of 2 months since the date of incident. There is no explanation on the side of the complainant as to why he remained silent for about 2 months regarding his grievance. Even he did not make any oral complaint to this OP bank.
In this connection ld. lawyer for the OP has cited a ruling from IV (2010) CPJ page No. 1 Chandigarh where the Hon’ble State Commission decided “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g), (1)(r), 15 - Banking and Financial Institutional Service – ATM – Withdrawal – Tried twice but unable to withdraw – Statement showed withdrawal of Rs. 4,000/- – SBI sent letter that withdrawal transactions was subsequently, and excess cash found in ATM – Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice alleged – Petition of complaint dismissed”.
On a careful perusal of the ruling of the Hon’ble State Commission we hold that it is applicable in the instant case. It is categorical assertion of the OP that JP log was correct and no money was found excess in the ATM.
In view of the above discussions our considered view is that the complainant has not become able to prove his case. So he is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/08 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
