Union Bank of India, the petitioner herein, was opposite party before the District Forum.

          Complainant/respondent was having a bank account with the petitioner bank.  On the evening of 1.11.2005, he had to rush to Patna as one of his relatives was seriously ill.  He went to the ATM of State Bank of India where his request was turned down by the ATM with remarks “sorry, unable to process”.  Thereafter, he went to the nearby ATM of Corporation Bank and made a request for withdrawal of Rs.4000/-, which was disallowed with remarks “issuer unavailable”.  He then went to the ATM of the petitioner’s bank at its main branch in Patna where his request was disallowed on the ground of insufficient funds.  Respondent found that there was a balance of only Rs.813/-.  It was also found by him that Rs.4,010/- had been withdrawn from his account.  Respondent apprised the petitioner about his grievance and requested to credit the sum of Rs.4,010/- to his account which the petitioner declined to redress, aggrieved against which, the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          Petitioner, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement.  Defence taken by the petitioner was that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.4,000/- from the ATM of Bank of India on 3.11.2005 at 06.43 hrs., which was a successful transaction.  That the Bank of India had recovered the aforesaid amount from the petitioner.  Since the amount had been recovered by the Bank of India from the petitioner, the account of the respondent was debited with Rs.4,010/-, Rs.10/- being the charges for withdrawal.  Along with the written statement, the petitioner filed the debit note showing that Rs.4,000/- had been withdrawn by the respondent from the ATM of Bank of India on 3.11.2005.  Bank of India was not made a party respondent.

          District Forum allowed the complaint with costs holding that the petitioner had failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that Rs.4,000/- had been withdrawn by the respondent on 3.11.2005 through the ATM transaction. 

          Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which has affirmed the order passed by the District Forum.

          Not satisfied with the order passed by the fora below, petitioner/opposite party has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Respondent is not present despite service.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.  Petitioner had a tie-up with the Bank of India.  On the basis of the ATM card issued by the petitioner to the respondent, the respondent successfully transacted the withdrawal of Rs.4,000/- from the ATM of Bank of India.  This fact is evident from the debit note of the Bank of India raised upon the petitioner bank showing that the transaction of Rs.4,000/- had taken place on the basis of the ATM card issued by the petitioner.  On the basis of the debit note received from the Bank of India, petitioner debited the account of the respondent for the sum of Rs.4,010/-, Rs.10/- being the transaction charges.  Bank of India was not made a party respondent.  Evidence, if any, regarding the transaction could be produced by the Bank of India.  Since, the demand had been raised by the Bank of India with whom the petitioner had a tie-up, the petitioner was obliged to honour the same.  Fora below have erred in holding that the petitioner did not produce any evidence showing withdrawal of the sum of Rs.4,000/-. 

          For the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is allowed.  Orders passed by the fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.