Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/15

Shri Sambhu kanti Debnath. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Mahajan,Mr.K.Datta.

08 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  15  of  2014

        Sri Sambhu Kanti Debnath,
     S/O- Late Jadu Gopal Debnath,
     Joynagar Middle Road,
     Agartala, West Tripura.        …........Complainant.
    
                 ______VERSUS______

             1. The State Bank of India,
        Represented by 
         Deputy General Manager/
         Regional Manager, 
         State Bank of India, Tripura Region, 
         Bijoy Kumar Chowmohani, 
         Krishnanagar, Agartala, West Tripura,

         2. The Assistant General Manager, 
         State Bank of India, 
         Agartala Branch,
         P.O.- Agartala, 
         West Tripura.        .........Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant    :     Sri Sovan Mahajan and
                      Sri Koushik Datta,
                       Advocates.
    
For the Opposite Parties    :     Sri Hare Krishna Bhowmik and
                      Sri Amit Saha
                      Advocates.    
          
                               

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  08.02.16

J U D G M E N T
        This case was filed by one Sambhu Kanti Debnth. He filed the case against the State Bank of India alleging that on 20.12.13 he withdrawn the amount of Rs.3,000/- on the ATM counter of SBI at Battala. On the same day again he visited ATM counter of Battala to withdraw some more amount but he noticed that Rs.16,000/- had already been withdrawn from his account. After withdrawn of Rs.3000/-. He made contact with the SBI authority for this missing Rs.16,000/- which he have not withdrawn. But SBI authority did not take any step for return of Rs.16,000/-. So, he filed this case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

2.        Opposite party, State Bank of India, did not appear at first but later on appeared and filed W/S as per the direction of the State Commission. Exparte judgment passed in favour of petitioner was set aside by the State Commission. By filing written statement State Bank of India, opposite party denied the claim and stated that Rs.16000/- was withdrawn and information given to his mobile. Complainant received the message prior to withdrawal of Rs.3000/-. Second time he noticed the withdrawn of Rs.16000/-. He again withdrawn Rs.500/-. But this is not correct. There was no deficiency of service by the SBI authority. 

3.        On the basis of rival contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination.
         (i) Whether Rs.16000/- was deducted from the account of petitioner though it was not withdrawn through ATM card?
         (ii) Whether there was any deficiency of service by SBI Authority?

4.        Petitioner side produced the photocopy of ATM Customer Advice, printed copy of SMS, photocopy of written complaint, written information and also complaint marked as exhibit 1 to Exhibit- 6, also examined one witness i.e., petitioner ,Sambhu Kanti Debnath.

5.        Opposite parties on the other hand examined one witness, Paresh Chandra Roy, Assistant General Manager of SBI. Also produced copy of difference of balance and cash disbursement, photocopy of video footage. 

6.        On the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.
        FINDINGS AND DECISION ON PINT NO. 1 AND 2:

7.        From the photocopy of SBI account it is found that on 20.12.13 three transactions were made from the account of the petitioner through ATM. 1st transaction is for Rs.3000/-, 2nd for1 Rs.6000/- and 3rd for Rs.500/-.  Dispute is on the transaction of Rs.16000/- from the same Battala ATM counter. From the ATM counter slip on 20.12.13 successful transaction is shown for Rs.3000/,- Rs.16,000/- and Rs.500/-. Some differences in respect of time of transaction is noticed. In the time of transaction 7.55 hours is shown for 1st transaction, 7.45 hours for 2nd transaction, 19.31 hours for 3rd transaction. 1st transaction is for Rs.3000/. But it was actually earlier than transaction of Rs.16000/- as shown in the ATM counter slip for customer advice. On this difference it is pointed out that customer did not receive Rs.16000/-. According to petitioner ATM card is all along in his custody. Then without application of ATM card how Rs.16000/- can be withdrawn. Nothing stated or established to support that any technical fault of the ATM counter. The argument for Rs.16000/- at a time can not be withdrawn can not be accepted by us. Because up to Rs.20,000/- can be withdrawn in the year 2013 from the State Bank of ATM Counter. CC TV footage do not support the contention of the petitioner. Complainant himself visited the ATM counter after missing Rs.16000/- and withdrawn Rs.500/-. CC TV camera was not operating as stated by the Manager of the State Bank. Transaction was successful as per ATM counter slip. Nothing produced before us to show that transaction was not successful and there was some fault in the ATM machine. The grievance of the petitioner was not redressed for the want of evidence. Without application ATM card withdrawal of Rs.16000/- from the account of the petitioner appears to be impossible and nothing is produced before us to support that the amount was hacked from the account through any other means. We can not disbelieve the mechanical system introduced and prevailing for long period only on the statement of the petitioner.

8.        All these findings appears that the opposite party, State Bank of India has no deficiency of service at all. Both the points are decided against the petitioner.

9.        In view of our above findings this case has no merit and therefore, petition stands dismissed. Parties are to bear their own cost. Supply copy of the judgment to the parties.                                                                                   Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.