Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/5/2015

Sandhyarani Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager , - Opp.Party(s)

13 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL

Consumer Complaint case No.  05 of 2015

Sandhyarani Panda, aged about 35 years

W/o Bichitrananda Kar, At: Station Bazar,

P.S: Town, PO: Dhenkanal, R.S, Dist: Dhenkanal                     ….........Complainant

                                                                                Versus

Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Main Branch I.G. Super Market,

PS: Town, PO/Dist: Dhenkanal                                                  ….............Opp. Party

Present: Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik,

                 Sri Khirod Kumar Pani, Member

Counsel: For the complainant: Purna Chandra Mishra & Associate

                  For the Opp. Party:  None appeared

Date of hearing argument: 3.5.2016

Date of order: 13.5.2016

                                                                                JUDGMENT

Sri Khirod Kumar Pani, Member

                In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Party.

1)            This is a consumer complaint filed on 2.1.2015.  The case of the complainant in short is that, the petitioner  Sandhyarani Panda is an account holder in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Dhenkanal bearing Account No. 32303423415 with A.T.M facility.  As per the complaint, when she checked her balance through a Mini Statement on 3.6.2014 at 10.40 A.M she noticed an unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/- from her account.  When the petitioner brought such unauthorized withdrawal to the notice of the O.P, the O.P instead of making any clarifications simply confirmed that, money has been withdrawn on different  occasions on dt. 11.5.2014.  It is further stated that, as  no satisfactory reply could be made available by the O.P, she applied for the detail information regarding the withdrawal by exercising her right under the provisions of R.T.I Act,2005.  The information sought was made available to the petitioner by the Regional Business Office, State Bank of India, Mirania Towers, Gandhi Marg, Angul vide their letter No.652 Dt. 24.7.2014 stating therein that on 11.5.2014, there has been three A.T.M transactions  of which  transaction No.1446 was successful dispensing Rs. 10,000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 10,310/-.  Further, it was stated in the said letter that  in respect of A.T.M transaction No.1712 and 1716 dated 11.5.2014, debit to S.B. Account failed but Rs. 10,000/-  and Rs. 10,000/- was debited to the account of the complainant on 21.5.2014 leaving a balance of Rs. 15,346/- and on 12.5.2014 leaving a balance of Rs. 310/- only  respectively. It is further stated by the petitioner that, after receipt of the information under R.T.I regarding wrong debit of Rs. 20,000/- to her account, she tried to revert back the wrongly debited money credited back to her account through personal approaches and written complaints to the Chief Manager, i.e. the O.P.  Due to continued inaction by the O.P, a  Police complain was  filed resulting in restoration of Rs. 10,000/- to her account.  Further   she stated that her complaint made to the General Manager (NW-I) did not yield any result.  The complainant points out to the deviation stating that instead of debiting the amount on the date of drawal to the balance available in the pass book on the same day and time instantly, it is doubtful as to how O.P claims debit of the amount on 12.5.2014 and on 21.5.2014 against a failed transactions of 11.5.2014.  Further, the petitioner also requested the O.P to provide a footage of CCTV as stated to know what happened on 12.5.2014 and 21.5.2014, which were failed on 11.5.2014 to deliver cash in the ATM Machine.  The petitioner further alleges that, non-attendance to her complaints in time, non-redressal of her grievance which is just and genuine amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  The complainant states that the cause of action arose on 3.6.2014 when she came to know about the excess deduction from her account for the first time and filed  in this Forum as the dispute arose within territorial jurisdiction of Dhenkanal District.  

                2) The complainant further prays to make the O.P liable for causing deficiency in service and practicing unfair trade practice   and direct the O.P to restore as a sum of Rs. 10,000/- ( Ten thousand) out of Rs. 20,000/- to the S.B.Account of the complainant which has been deducted on 12.5.2014 and 21.5.2014 vide ATM transaction No.1716 and 1712 Dt. 11.5.2014 respectively.  Moreover, the complainant has further prayed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for causing unnecessary mental agony, physical and financial harassment and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.  The contents of the petition are supported by affidavit.

                3) Notice was sent to the O.P.  Despite receipt of notice the O.P neither turned up nor filed any written version denying the allegations of the complainant which is supported by affidavit.  Therefore, the matter was heard exparte from the complainant.

                4)  Now the only issue before us to be decided as to whether the  Opp. Party is in deficiency of service?  From the complaint petition  as it appears that the complainant is the holder of one Saving Bank account vide account No.32303423415 in the Main Branch, of S.B.I, Dhenkanal and she used the ATM counter at Sasan Chhak for drawal of cash.  Since the complainant is having a savings Bank account maintained in the O.P.Bank  in our considered opinion that she is a consumer and the present case is maintainable before this Forum as it relates to deficiency in service  and also this Forum is  having territorial jurisdiction.  The pivotal point needs our consideration as to whether the debit of certain amount from the account of the complainant suffers from  any deficiency for which the O.P is squarely liable.  The O.P has been set exparte  as no written version has been filed  denying the allegations  of the complainant.  As no written version has been filed by the O.P in defense, deficiency on the part of the O.P has to be reckoned from the contentions and documents filed by the petitioner. Evidence regarding drawal of cash and failed attempt to draw cash on 11.5.2014  by the petitioner mainly hinges upon the entries in her savings Book.  Pass Book No. 32303423415, Branch Code: 68, Photocopy of Savings Bank Account Mini statement dated 3.6.2014, 10.42 A.M, TX N No. 4119, letter No. CM/5864 Dt. 07.06.14 of Chief Manager, S.B.I, Dhenkanal addressed to the complainant and information provided to the petitioner vide letter No. RBO-1/ANGL/Admin/RTI/29/652 dated 24.7.2014 by Sri Rajiv Verma, General Manager (NW-I) State Bank of India local Head Office III/1 PT. J.N.Marg, Bhubaneswar.

5)        Upon close examination of the contentions filed by the petitioner along with original passbook  the following discrepancies are apparent.

                The petitioner alleges that, she had actually drawn Rs. 10,000/-  on 11.5.2014, whereas Rs. 30,000/- has been debited from her account  first Rs. 10,000/- on 11.5.2014, 2^nd  Rs. 10,000/- on 12.5.2014 and the 3^rd Rs. 10,000/- on 21.5.2014, the fact being communicated to her in letter No. CM/58/64 Dt. 7.6.2014 of Chief Manager, S.B.I Dhenkanal and confirmed by the O.P in the information provided to the petitioner by the General Manager ( NW-I) in his letter No.652 Dt. 24.7.2014 under R.T.I Act.  Moreover, the petitioner has indicated that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been restored to her account after filing a Police complaint against  the O.P & balance Rs. 10,000/- wrongly debited to her account remain unrestored by the O.P.

                As no account statement has been filed by the O.P in defense or obtained by the petitioner from the O.P & filed, the entries from 11.5.2014 to 21.5.2014 in the  Savings Bank pass book of the petitioner is taken as a conclusive evidence to test the veracity of disputed ATM transaction.  On examination of pass book entries on 11.5.2016 vide ATM transaction No.1446 it is found that, only Rs. 10,000/- was drawn on that date from the available balance of Rs. 20,310/- leaving balance of Rs. 10,310/-.  Thereafter, again the petitioner found to have drawn Rs. 10,000/- vide ATM transaction No.1716 on 12.5.2014 from the available balance of Rs. 10,310/- on that day leaving a balance of Rs. 310/- only.  Again on the same day i.e. 12.5.2014, the petitioner appear to have attempted three more drawals from ATM which were decline, the balance available being Rs. 310/- & bank found to have debited Rs. 17/- each time & debiting Rs. 51/- on 12.5.2014 reducing the available balance to Rs. 259/-.  On the same day i.e. a sum of Rs. 79,087/- found to have been credited to the account of the petitioner increasing the credit balance to Rs. 79,346/- out of which the petitioner found to have drawn Rs. 39,000/- through three ATM transactions bringing down the closing balance on 12.5.2014 to Rs. 40,346/-.  It is at the same time confusing as to why a sum of Rs. 10,000/-  was set hold on 13.5.2014, which was set free  on 3.6.2014, the entries being self cancelling having no effect on closing balance each time.  On 16.5.2014, the petitioner found to have drawn Rs. 15,000/- vide A.T.M transaction No.3074 bringing down the closing balance to rs. 25,348/-.  But again on 21.5.2014, the O.P found to have debited Rs. 10,000/- from the S.B.Account of the petitioner vide transaction TXN 2712 Dt. 12.5.2014 REVD even though the petitioner found not to have drawn the amount from ATM reducing the closing balance  to Rs. 15,346/-.  This transaction could not be accounted for satisfactorily by the O.P either in the letter of Chief Manager, S.B.I, Dhenkanal in his letter  No. CM/58/64 Dt. 7.6.2014 or in the information provided to the petitioner by the General Manager ( N.W-I), Bhubaneswar in his letter No.652 Dt. 24.7.2014,  when infact the petitioner never attempted three drawals from ATM on 11.5.2014.  Moreover, no restoration of Rs. 10,000/- found to have been  through credit of equivalent amount in the account of the complainant after intervention of I.I.C, Town  P.S. Dhenkanal vide his letter No.622 Dt. 4.6.2014.

6)            After thorough analysis of the S.B.Account entries from 11.5.2014 onwards, it is found that neither petitioner nor the O.P have given a true picture of exact transactions and consequential wrong debit of the credit balance of petitioner’s account when a solitary successful transaction is recorded & no failed attempt recorded on 11.5.2014.  The three failed attempt & one successful drawal of Rs. 10,000/- through ATM on 12.5.2014 has neither been indicated by the petitioner nor by the O.P.  But, the debit of Rs. 10,000/- on 21.5.2014 (TXN 2712 Dt. 12.5.2014)  made by the O.P reducing the closing balance to Rs. 15,346/- is misleading, unconvincing & void to that extent penalizing the petitioner to make her run  from pillar to post to undo his wrong debit  along with non-cooperation & denial to provide C.C.T.V footage as requested by her by the O.P, amounts to deficiency in service.  Since this is a case of defective entries, the O.P stands responsible to undo such wrong entries quickly & since O.P has been defending such wrong entries resulting in mental harassment & pecuniary loss to the petitioner, the O.P is held responsible for deficiency in service.  In this regard we are fortified by a decision of the  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi  reported in 2015 (1) CPR at page 797 ( N.C)  in case of State Bank of India, through its Chief Manager vrs. Sansar Chand Kapoor & Anr wherein it has been held by the National Commission that “Petitioner Bank held deficient in rendering services to complainant by not making available a copy of CCTV footage to him”

7)    Now taking into considerations of the foregoing discussions and more particularly the allegations of the complainant supported by affidavit and in absence of any denial and counter affidavit and   the decisions of the National Commission as referred to above, we are of the view that,  a wrong debit of Rs. 10,000/-  has been made by the O.P on 21.5.2014 and also  by not making available a copy of CCTV footage to the petitioner amounts to gross negligence for which the complainant suffered a lot and for that she is entitled for relief and the O.P is liable to pay compensation.  Hence ordered.

                                                                                                ORDER

                In the result, the consumer complaint filed by the complaint is allowed exparte.  The O.P is directed to credit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only  to the account of the complainant forthwith with upto date interest as applicable to Savings Bank account w.e.f. the date of debit i.e. 21.5.2014 upto the exact date of credit.  Further the O.P is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only along with cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

I agree

 

(Badal Bihari Pattanaik)                                                                                          (Khirod Kumar Pani)

         President                                                                                                                      Member