Madhya Pradesh

Bhopal-II

RBT/CC/16/956

sarsij dwivedi - Complainant(s)

Versus

central bank of india - Opp.Party(s)

24 Sep 2019

ORDER

24&09&2019

 

For the complainant—Shri Praveen Dwivedi Advocate

               For opposite party no. 1—Shri Manoj Shahi Advocate

          For Opposite  Party no. 2and 3-Deleted

For opposite party no.4-Shri yash vidhyarti Advocate

For opposite party No.5-Absent

                                     

1.        Complainant is account holder of O.P. no.1 having a account no. 3129377878 having Atm facility.On 26.07.2016 he had used ATM of SBI Mauganj Rewa to withdraw Rs 10,000/, the balance before the withdrawal was Rs 21,139/-, But after withdrawal of Rs 10,000/- it became Rs 1139/- . Opposite party was informed repeatedly but Rs 10,000/- was not returned back.
2.        A written complaint was made on 22.08.2016. The O.P. threatened and asked to lodge  a FIR at respective Police Station. FIR was not lodged bu Mauganj Thana and only receipt of application was given which was given to O.P., O.P. assured to see the footage, but no action.
3.        A legal notice was served to O.P.on 13.10.2016 but not replied back.
4. The complainant has prayed to refund Rs10,000/- extra debited, pay Rs 10,000/- spent on going to mauganj Rewa for lodging FIR,Rs10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs 5000/- towards litigation expenses.
5. The complainant has produced his affidavit,counter affidavit and annex. A-1 to A7.
6. Opposite party no. 1 states in its reply that ATM facility is given on request,complaint was lodged with SBI and it responded as Transaction successful which was conveyed to complainant. There were two successful transactions from ATM of O.P. 4 so the balance remained Rs 1139/-. Also footage is maintained by O.P.4and can be seen by police / Investigating agency so answering party cannot be held responsible.
7. The complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.
8. Affidavit of Shri Bir bahadur Sharma Chief Mgr submitted.
9. Opposite party no.4 states that complainant has not availed any services from them by paying any consideration hence not consumer.

The complainant on 26.07.2016 at 16.42 hrs used ATM operated by SBI main Br. Located in front of Post Office Rewa having ATM ID EFBJ 000468021, and withdrawn Rs 10,000/. Transaction was successful having No. 683. He recieved Rs 10,000/-. The complainant used his ATM card no. 5044373493415564. Again on 26.07.2016 at 17.00 hrs at same ATM machine withdrawn Rs 10,000/- , the transaction was successful and no. was 696. Both the transactions were successful.

1.        National payment corporationof India has also confirmed both transactions as successful. SBI main branch vide letter dtd. 25.04.2017 has confirmed that no excess or less of cash has taken place. Withdrwal can be done using PIN. The complaint be dismissed with costs.
2.        Affidavit of Shri Shyam Gupta Br. Mgr. With Annex. R-1 To r- 5 submitted.
3.        The dispute arose owing to the allegation of the complainant that he has withdrawn only once the amount Rs 10,000/- by using ATM of O.P. 4 but the amount has been debited twice hence he has suffered a loss of Rs 10,000/- due to fault of opposite parties.
4.        The important point here is that the complainant has not avered any where in the complaint that the ATM card was lost or was not in his possession during these ATM withdrawls , also he has not made any averment with regard to sharing of PIN no. with anyone. As without the ATM card and its PIN no. ATM cannot be used for withdrawing money from ATM machine, the allegation with respect to repeated transaction for Rs 10,000/- is not acceptable by the Fora.
5.        We further make perusalof R-1 and R-2 (E.J.LOG) submitted by O.P.4 it clearly reflects Transaction 683 done by using card no. 5044373493415564 at 16.42 hrs. on 26.07.2016. Similarly transaction no. 696 by the same card no. at 17.00 hrs. on 26.07.2016. In both the transactions Rs 10,000/- has been withdrawn.It proves that the card was used twice to withdraw Rs 10,000/- twice. The complainant has not avered that he did not recieve the amount in any of the transactions.rather he alleges that he has used card only once to withdraw the money. This is not possible without the card and PIN. R-3(EFBJ) Further confirms both the transactions. R-5 is letter of O.P. 4    to National Payment corp. of India certifying cash tally.
6.        The complainant has in his counter affidavit not challenged the E.J.Log and EFBJ submitted by the O.P. no.4.
7.        Thus the Fora is of the considered view that the allegation of complainant is not proved whereas the opposite party no. 4 SBI the ATM machine operator has very well discharged its onus in support of its stand by submitting cogent evidences acceptable to the Fora and unchallenged by the complainant.
8.        The complaint against the opposite parties is thus dismissed.
9.        Both the parties to bear their own costs.
10.        Let the record be deposited in the record room, after noting down the order.

                                                               

         

         (Bharat Bhusan Shrivastava) (Anil kumar Verma) (Alka saxsena)

            President                                   Member                    Member

        District Consumer Disputes                               District Consumer Disputes                District Consumer Disputes

                 Redressal Forum,                                               Redressal Forum,                                          Redressal Forum,

                   Bhopal Bench-2 ,M.P.                                     Bhopal, Bench-2 M.P.                           Bhopal, Bench-2 M.P.