BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 38 of 2011
Sri Debojyoti Debroy, …………………………………………………. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India
New Silchar Branch
P.O & P.S – Silchar, Dist. Cachar, (Assam)……………………….Opp. Party
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Ranjan Deb, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri , Sibdas Dutta, Advocate for the O.P.
Date of evidence………………………………. 23-11-2011, 30-01-2012
Date of submission of written argument……. 11-01-2016, 16-02-2016
Date of argument…………….......................... 29-03-2017
Date of judgment……………………………... 18-05-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(Sri Bishnu Debnath)
- The complainant Sri. Debojyoti Debroy lodged complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 for award a direction to the Chief Manager SBI, New Silchar branch to return Rs. 5000 and made credit entry to his bank Account No. 10390598225 with compensation of Rs. 50,000/ and cost of this proceeding of Rs. 10,000/-
- Brief fact:- The complainant is an Account holder of SBI New Silchar Branch. The Account Number is 10390598225 with ATM facility. On 13/04/2010 at 17:54 he operated the ATM machine situated to the opposite of the SBI New Silchar Branch but he did not receive money of Rs. 5000/- rather a computerized receipt come out from the machine mentioning ‘Sorry unable to process’. After 2 minutes he attempted at 17:56 but on that occasion did neither receive money from that ATM nor any information slip came out from the ATM Machine. Finding no hope he went to Club Road, Silchar near Geetanjali Hotel and operated the ATM machine on the same date but information slip came out from the machine that the questioned amount has been withdrawn and there was no balance as such for the machine to pay.
- Accordingly, the complainant visited the SBI, New Silchar Branch on 16/04/2010 and explained the happening. On 17/04/2010 he lodged complaint to the O.P Bank vide Token No. AT. 5922180511 but the O.P did not restore the money to the complainants account. Hence, he send Pleader’s notice on 03/05/2010. In reply the O.P furnished letter No. CM/32/43 dated 14/05/2010 enclosing therewith a copy of Electronic journal report stating that at the second attempt for withdrawal of Rs. 5000 at 17:56 hrs successfully paid Rs.5000. On being aggrieved the instant complaint lodged.
- The O.P submitted W/S and contested the proceeding. In the W/S the O.P stated inter-alia that the complainant received Rs. 5000/- on 2nd attempt form ATM. MO. SIAN00592201 against his Account No. 10390598225. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
- During hearing, the complainant deposed as P.W and exhibited Pleader’s Notice, Reply of the O.P bank dated 14/05/2010 and letter dated 02/06/2010 of engaged lawyer of the complainant addressed to the Chief Manager of O.P Bank. The O.P Bank also examined the Chief Manager Mr. Deepak Choudhury and exhibited computerized information slip dated 13/04/2010 of ATM No. SIAN00592201 in connection with ATM Card No. 6220180592200104319. The letter of undertaking of the Complainant. (Complain Petition submitted to Bank) in respect of debit of Rs. 5000/- from the Account No. 1039059822 belonged to the complainant.
- Heard argument and perused the evidence on record and written argument of both the parties.
- In this case the crux point is whether the complainant received Rs. 5,000/- from ATM No. SIAN00592201 on 13/04/2010 at 17:56 hrs.
- The complaint deposed that he did not get the amount but the amount Rs. 5000 has been debited from his SBI Account No. 1039059822. The O.P took plea that the complainant received the amount from the above ATM machine on 13/04/2010 at 17:56 hrs.
- To support the O.P submitted computerised information slip vide Ext. A but the complainant deposed that he did neither receive any computerized information slip for the said ATM machine at that relevant time nor receive the cash of Rs. 5000/- from that ATM machine.
- From the evidence on record it is crystal clear that the complainant’s ATM card No. 6220180592200104319 was used to the ATM machine bearing ID No. SIAN00592201 twice at 17:54 and 17:56 hrs. At the first attempt information came out “sorry unable to process”. The Complainant also stated the same fact. The Ext. A also revealed the fact that on 2nd attempt of the aforesaid ATM card on the above mention ATM machine at 17:56 hrs the transaction success by printing information of withdrawal of Rs. 5000/- So prima facie it is shown that amount of Rs. 5000 debited. So, it may be presumed that the complainant received the amount Rs. 5000/- on 13/04/2010 at 17:56 hrs. But the complainant denied. That is why, the onus is lying with the O.P because the O.P is stating that the complainant received the amount from the above mentioned ATM machine.
- Of course, the O.P exhibited electronic journal dated 13/04/2010 to establish the fact but transaction was successful but above document is not sufficient to conclude that the complainant really received that money. To avoid that situation of denying of receiving actual hard cash from the ATM machine. The O.P Bank for precautionary measure installed CCTV Camera in the ATM Booth. So to establish the onus, the O.P could submit video clips of relevant transaction before this Forum in addition of Ext. C. But they did not submit it. Moreover, the complainant suggested the O.P to verify the transaction with video footage vide his engaged lawyer letter dated 02/06/2010 (Ext. 3) but the O.P did not verify the transaction. Hence after hearing argument. We also asked the O.P to submit video clips of relevant date and time of transaction but the O.P bank replied that video clips is not available in its system as 7 years lapse. Vide letter dated 03/05/2017 and our office Ptn. No. 299. Why video clip was not preserved for proving its onus is best known to the O.P which is remained unexplained.
- That is why, at this situation considering the preponderance of provabity we have concluded that the onus of the O.P that the complainant received the cash of Rs.5000/- on the relevant transaction is not established. On the other hand, the plea of the complainant that he did neither received any electronic information slip from the ATM machine at the relevant time of transaction nor receive any hard cash from the ATM machine are reliable and believable. So the above anomaly of the ATM machine is deficiency of service of the O.P Bank towards the Complainant.
- Thus, the complainant is entitled refund of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand) only with compensation of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) only and cost of proceeding of Rs. 500/- from the O.P. Therefore, O.P is asked to pay total awarded amount 5000+2000+500 = 7,500/-(Rupees Seven thousand five hundred) only to the complainant within 45 days from today. In default 10% interest per annum will fetch with the awarded amount with effect from 46th day from today till realization of the full amount.
- With the above order, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 18th day of May, 2017.
