Orissa

Malkangiri

16/2015

Mrithul Mondal, S/O-Sunil Mondal, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,State Bank of India, Malkangiri, - Opp.Party(s)

self

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 16/2015
( Date of Filing : 11 Feb 2015 )
 
1. Mrithul Mondal, S/O-Sunil Mondal,
At.Mv-26,Po-Mariwada,Malkangiri, PS/Dist. Malkangiri, Represented by hisfather Sri Sunil Mondal S/O Late Deepchanda Mondal of Vill M.V. 27, Po. Mariwada, Malkangiri,Odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Branch Manager,State Bank of India, Malkangiri,
Code 16133) Malkangiri Road, Near NAC office, Malkangiri, Odisha.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 31 Aug 2015
Final Order / Judgement

 

We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents in particular. Matter in issue centers around all aspects as to whether the complainant withdrew Rs. 13,450/- through PoS on24.12.2014 and 30.12.2014 through ATM from his aforesaid SB A/C.

The Damodar Committee on Customer Service in Bank commissioned by RBI has stated that “Customers should be put on a Zero Liability Protection” in respect of ATM and internet transactions and even when there is a dispute Bank should immediately make good the amount provisionally. The said “Damodar Committee” set up by the Central Government & Reserve Bank of India at Para 03.02.2005 of the report directed that :

“Instead of the bank putting the onus on the customer to prove that he has not done the transaction or caused it to happen, the onus should be on the bank to prove that the customer has done the transaction.”

As the complainant categorically stated that he has not made any transaction from the ATM as alleged and when the Opposite Party failed to disprove the case of the complainant as per the report of Damodor Committee Commissioned by the RBI, we are of the view that the case of the complainant has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Again, the Opposite Party did not take any steps tore-credit the amount in question into the account of Consumer. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Opposite Party-Bank is deficient in rendering service and liable to compensate the Complainant for the loss sustained by her.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the O.P is deficient in rendering service and liable to compensate the Complainant for the loss sustained by her. Accordingly, it is ordered.

                                                                                             ORDER

We direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 13,450/- ( Rupees Thirteen thousand four hundred fifty) only with 9% interest to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay 18% interest from the date of fraudulent withdrawal through Pos till the payment is made.

Supply free copy to the parties as per rules.

Delivered in the open forum on this 31st August,2015.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.