DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 16th day of August, 2018
C.D Case No. 73 of 2016
Present:-
1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Sanatan Sahoo
S/o Late Bharat Ch. Sahoo
At: Naugarada
Po: Matto
Ps: Chandabali
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Branch Manager
State Bank of India, Chandabali Branch
At/Po/Ps: Chandabali
Dist: Bhadrak
2. Regional Manager
State Bank of India
Regional Office
At/Po/Dist: Balasore
3. Branch Manager
United Bank of India, Motto Branch
At/Po: Motto
Ps: Chandabali
Dist: Bhadrak
4. Chief Regional Manager
UBI, A/32 Kharavel Nagar
Bhubaneswar- 751001
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel for Complainant: Mr. Apubra Das, Advocate & Purnalata Sahu, Adv
Counsel for OP No. 1: Mr. Jaminikanta Nayak, Advocates
Date of hearing: 02.05.2017
Date of order: 16.08.2018
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arose out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant is a Customer/Depositor of OP No. 1 Bank having his SB deposit account No- 11391001926 and also was issued with an ATM card which is used very often for withdrawal of money from his account. On 22.12.2015 within the time of 11 AM to 12 noon, the complainant tried to withdraw a sum of Rs 10,000/- from United Bank of India ATM situated at Motto but unfortunately the transaction initiated for withdrawal of money failed and the machine did not deliver the withdrawal amount. As the complainant was in need of money, he refused in to the SBI ATM situated nearby at Motto and withdrawn an amount of Rs 10,000/- and the ATM machine generated two receipts wherein it was mentioned that the deposit account maintained with OP No. 1 Bank has been debited with Rs 20,000/- vide two transactions @ Rs 10,000/- each. Being shocked with such happening, complainant proceeded to OP No. 1 Bank at Chandabali and lodged a complaint who instead of receiving the complaint advising to wait for 48 hours and simultaneously complainant also lodged another complaint with the OP No. 3 Bank. After lapse of 48 hours, complainant once again proceeded to OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 Banks and lodged complaint with the both to credit the debited amount to his account held with OP No. 1. Since then the complainant has ran from pillar to past to get back his money but all of his efforts ended in fiasco. Days and months passed but none of the O.Ps responded the complainant. Consequently the complainant served notice upon the O.Ps through his advocate on dt. 13th day of May, 2016 requesting payment of money by way of crediting his SB account maintained with OP No. 1 which also not responded by the O.Ps as they preferred to remain silent on the issue. Finding no other way to get back the money, complainant filed this dispute praying for a direction to OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 to credit the amount of Rs 10,000/- to the SB a/c of the complainant together with compensation of Rs 15,000/- for mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation.
O.Ps, except OP No. 1, did not appear before the Forum nor filed written version to contest the case and consequently OP No. 2, 3 & 4 were set ex-parte. OP No. 1 objected the contentions of complainant and contested the case. At the outset, OP No. 1 (here in after said at ‘OP’) raised the question of maintainability, cause of action and limitation for which the complaint does not have merit for adjudication. Simultaneously complainant has denied all the averments made in the complaint holding the averments wrong, vague, misconceived and self made story based on imagination. Further the OP has stated that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the complainant was a depositor of OP Bank and has also been issued with ATM card. The OP Bank has also stated that it is not correct to state that on dt. 22.12.2015 at about 11 AM to 12 AM the complainant tried to withdrawn an amount of Rs 10,000/- from UBI ATM situated at Motto but the transaction failed and the complainant rushed to the SBI ATM situated at Motto and withdrew an amount of Rs 10,000/-. After withdrawal of money the ATM machine generated receipts which revealed the withdrawal of Rs 20,000/- and his account held with SBI Chandabali has been debited twice @ Rs 10,000/- for each transaction. It is also stated in the written version that the Bank has not advised the complainant to wait for 48 hours at the time of lodging complaint with the OP on the day the withdrawal transaction failed. OP also does not agree to any averments of the complaint and claims the complaint does not have any merit and prayed for dismissal of the dispute with heavy cost.
We have gone through the complaint as well as written version submitted by the OP and perused the materials on record. On a close scrutiny of the evidences adduced by complainant and the objections of the OP, it is decided by us to discuss on the following points.
(a). Is the complainant a depositor of OP No. 1 Bank and is he a consumer within the meaning of CP Act?
(b). Was the complainant issued with an ATM card by the OP and did he use ATM card for withdrawal the amount from OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 Bank’s ATM?
(c). If the complainant suffered from financial loss for failed transaction?
(d). Are the O.Ps found deficient in providing service to the complainant?
1. Although not directly but OP has indirectly admitted that the complainant was a depositor of it’s Branch/Bank vide account No- 1139100 as reveals from letter No- BR/2016-1/2009 dt. 11.04.2016 and letter No- nil dt. 18.06.2016. A copy of the letter, dt. 11.04.2016 addressed to the Branch Manager of OP No. 3 Bank was communicated to the complainant that proves the complainant is a depositor of OP bank and was issued with an ATM cards to use for withdrawal of money from his account. Secondly it is also well proved that the complainant has tried to withdraw the amount from UBI ATM situated at Motto Bazar but the said transaction failed. It was the 2nd attempt of the complainant on the same day within a span of 10/15 minutes to withdraw Rs 10,000/- from the SBI ATM situated at Motto where the transaction was successful. But the problem arose when the ATM generated receipts indicating debit of Rs 20,000/- (Rs 10,000/- each) from his account held with OP Bank. Hence from the above facts it is crystal clear that the complainant is a depositor and the OP Bank has issued ATM card to be used by the complainant.
2. It is well proved from the correspondence made by OP Bank on dt. 11.04.2016 addressing to OP No. 3 Bank on the complaint filed by the complainant about debit of Rs 10,000/- in spite of the transaction failed. It was mentioned in said letter that the complainant wanted to draw a sum of Rs 10,000/- through UBI ATM situated at Motto but the transaction failed. Apart from above the software used by the Bank’s can easily record if the ATM card was used for drawl of money. Such instances of failed transactions are known to the concerned Bank’s but the OP No. 3 Bank did not care for the complaint of the complainant to resolve the matter. Silence on the matter for a prolonged period of time without any response to the grievance petition of the complainant leads to believe that OP No. 3 Bank has deliberately neglected the sincere requests of the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service and not refunding the failed transaction amount within the specified period of 7 days by way of crediting the amount to the SB account of the complainant is nothing but an act of unfair trade practice. Secondly each and every customer of a banking institution is entitled to enjoy the services to be provided by the Bank as against which the Banks realize charges from the customers and therefore every depositor falls within the meaning of Sec- 2 of CP Act, 1986 and therefore the depositor is a consumer of any banking/financial institutions.
3. It is a fact that Rs 10,000/- may not have any importance for a OP Banks but that much of amount is having much importance for a poor and small depositor. It is very much clear that when the complainant failed to draw the amount from UBI ATM, the system should have generated a receipt showing the transaction failed but in the instant case the system did not generate any such receipt which kept the complainant in darkness about the reason of failure of transaction. Secondly when the complainant used the ATM card for drawl of an amount of Rs 10,000/- from SBI ATM at Motto, the transaction was successful but his a/c was debited with Rs 20,000/- in two transactions and this is very much astonishing as to how two receipts was generated by the ATM machine as against single successful transaction and it is also astonishing as to how an ATM machine of OP Bank shall generate a receipt for the transaction made in UBI, ATM. Such impossible incident gives rise to the doubt that the complainant has been deceived by the system error which needs to be compensated by OP No. 3 Bank. Secondly OP Bank could have unveiled the exact truth if it would have sincerely tried to protect the interest of it’s customer/complainant but failed to do so which proves it’s gross negligence in providing proper service to the complainant despite repeated request/approach in a frequent manner. Hence it is well proved that the complainant has unnecessary suffered financially for the negligence and system error of OP Bank and OP No. 3 Bank and therefore both are liable to augment the loss sustained by the complainant. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
In the result, the present complaint be and the same is allowed against the OP Bank on contest and allowed ex-parte against OP No. 3. OP No. 1 is directed to credit a sum of Rs 10,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 4% as applicable to SB accounts from the date of occurrence till the date of payment. This much of amount to be paid to the complainant by OP No. 1 Bank shall be recovered from the OP No. 3 Bank for its gross negligence in resolving the matter within the time frame and has to pay Rs 2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. The order must be implemented within a period of 30 days failing which interest @ 7% shall be imposed on the award amount from the date occurrence till the date of payment.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 16th August, 2018 under the seal of the Forum.
