Orissa

Cuttak

CC/160/2021

Goutam Bhol - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

B DasMohapatra & associates

06 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                C.C.No.160/2021

          Goutam Bhol,

          Son of Late Krushna Chandra Bhol,

          Resident of Hindolkothi,Tulsipur,

          P.S:Bidanasi,Cuttack,

          Odisha-753008.                                            ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1. Union Bank of India,

(Earstwhile Corporation Bank)

Represented by Branch Manager,

Union Bank,OSBCExtBranch,Kacheri Road,

                         PO-Chandinichowk,Cuttack-753002

 

2. Tata Communications Payment Solutions Ltd.,

(TCPSL),LVSB,Kashinath Dhuru Marg,

Mumbai-400028                                                                                     ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    29.09.2021

Date of Order:  06.02.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.Das Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.1.      :          Mr. M.K.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.2       :             Mr. S.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                                  

Case of the complainant in short is that he has a Savings Bank Account bearing No.2080520101053322963 with the O.P No.1 and was provided with one International Debit Card bearing No.4199810014420231. The O.P No.1 was deducting some amount from the account of the complainant towards the maintenance charges of the said debit card of the complainant.  As a lawyer by profession, the complainant was visiting different parts of the Country in connection with his profession and the Debit Card was convenient and safe for use of him.  On 2.7.2020 the complainant had used the above debit card in the ATM of O.P no.2 at Delhi for withdrawal of Rs.2000/- but when the cash was not dispensed with, the complainant had tried for the second time at the ATM counter of the O.P No.2 but the transaction was again unsuccessful.  But after some time, the complainant could withdraw cash of Rs.1000/- at another ATM counter by using the same debit card.  The complainant could notice that a sum of R.2000/- was debited from his account inspite of failure of the earlier transaction at the ATM of O.P no.2..  He had intimated the matter to the Customer Care through the Customer Care No.18004253555.  He was given an impression that the money will be credited to his account within 24 hours thereafter.  He had made one official twitter to O.P no.1 in this connection also and was replied back that the money will be refunded back to his account within 24 hours.  But after elapse of 24 hours when the money was not reversed, the complainant has sent mail to O.P no.1 and to the authorities of O.P No.1 also.  After getting the mail from the complainant, O.P no.1 had forwarded the same to FTS  Centre to do the needful with a copy to the complainant.  Thereafter there were exchange of several e.mails in between the complainant and the O.Ps but the failed transaction money of Rs.2000/- could not be reversed to the account of the complainant.  The complainant has further mentioned in his complaint petition that as per the RBI guidelines the failed ATM transaction is to be reversed within 7 working days and thereafter the complainant will be entitled to compensation @ Rs.100/- per day by the issuing bank for the lapses if any.  The complainant had apprised the O.Ps as regards to such RBI guidelines and had requested them to have a glance at the Electronic Journal/Journal Print of his Transaction and also to the End of Day Reconciliation Report, Cash Verification Report of the ATM for that date, ATM camera and CCTV camera recordings for the transaction and Switch Report of the transaction of the complainant to prove that the amount was not dispensed with and the transaction was unsuccessful.  The compliance as per the guidelines again has been amended to be of 5 days in case of failed ATM transactions.  Thus, the complainant has sent legal notice to the O.Ps on 31.8.2020 and ultimately had to file this case against the O.Ps seeking from them a sum of Rs.2000/- towards the failed transaction, a sum of Rs.100/- per day from the date of the failed transaction till the actual recredit of the failed transaction to his account also for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards his litigation expenses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and further interest on the failed transaction amount.  The complainant has further prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

He has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case including copy of the legal notice and the various e.mail chats in-between himself and the O.Ps.

2.         Both the O.Ps have contested this case but have filed their written versions separately.  As per the written version of O.P no.1, the case of the complainant is not at all maintainable as there was no deficiency in service on his part.  The O.P no.1 had raised charge back claim on the Acquiring Bank(Indicash) on the basis of the complaint of the complainant but the said complaint was rejected by the Acquiring Bank(Indicash) in Dispute Management System as because the transaction was successful.  Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant was rejected and the complainant was not entitled to receive any fund.  The fact was communicated to the complainant also alongwith J.P.Log since because the Acquiring Bank(Indicash) had clarified that the transaction was successful, the O.P no.1 could not restore the deducted amount for the alleged failed transaction of the complainant.  The O.P no.1 through his written version has stated that if at all the money is not received by the complainant then it might be the fault of the ATM machine of O.P no.2 or the fault of O.P no.2 and in no way the present O.P no.1 is liable here in this case.  O.P no.1 has admitted about the International Debit Card issued in favour of the complainant and since because the transaction was successful for withdrawal of Rs.2000/- at the machine of O.P no.2 through the Debit Card of the complainant, the said amount was debited from the account of the complainant by O.P no.1.  As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P no.1 for which through his written version he has prayed to dismiss the complaint petition.

O.P no.2 in his written version admits about the ATM machines as installed by him for the benefit of the customers.  The O.P no.2 through his written version has also specified that the complainant had successfully withdrawn an amount of Rs.2000/- from the ATM machine.  The complainant had used E.J.Log and Switch Date of the ATM machine to withdraw Rs.2000/- and the said amount was dispensed with by the complainant which was received by him.  The E.J. Log is the report which is saved at the ATM machine for recoding every details of each and every transaction done in the ATM.  Upon perusal of the said E.J.Log of the said ATM machine for 2.7.2020, it is noticed that a sum of Rs.2000/- was dispensed for the transaction done by the complainant by using his ATM Card bearing No.4199810014420231.The O.P no.2 alongwith his written version has annexed copy of the E.J.Log and Switch Report showing successful transaction of Rs.2000/-.  O.P no.2 has further added in his written version that there was no unsuccessful transaction done on the said date in the said ATM machine and there was no mismatch of cash balance report for that date.  There was also no excess cash from the said ATM on the said date.  Thus, it is the contention of the O.P no.2 that when the transaction is successful after swapping of the Debit Card of the complainant for the sum of Rs.2000/- at the ATM counter of O.P no.2 on 2.7.2020, the complainant has no cause and has rather falsely filed this case which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed only.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit in this case and the same when perused, it is noticed that he has corroboratively made all the averments in his evidence affidavit as done by him in his complaint petition.

O.P no.2 has filed his evidence affidavit also through one Sr. Manager(Legal) namely Lalita Singh who also has reiterated the averments of the written version of O.P no.2.

 

Issue No.ii.

Out of the three issues, Issue no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

On perusal of copies of the documents as filed from either sides here in this case and after going through copies of annexed documents on behalf of O.P no.2, it is noticed that infact there was no unsuccessful transaction done on 2.7.2020 and the ATM card of the complainant bearing No.4199810014420231 was successfully swapped at the ATM machine of O.P no.2 on 2.7.2020 for a cash withdrawal of Rs.2000/-.  Thus the allegations as erected against the O.Ps by the complainant shingles down and are rather shattered through copies of documents as filed by the O.Ps for which this Commission has no hesitation as we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps here in this case in order to hold them liable for the same.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 6^th  day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.       

                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                          President

      

 

                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                  Member