The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar, O.P No.2 is the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, Balasore, O.P No.3 is the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Soro Branch, Soro and O.P No.4 is the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Vivekananda Marg, Balasore. 

                    1. Succinctly put, the brief facts which are material to the case are that the Complainant having one Savings Bank Account No.11157690345 with O.P No.4 along with ATM facility bearing Card No.6220180001600105868. The Complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.4000/- through ATM installed near SBI, Soro Branch. Available balance in the said S.B A/c was Rs.16,220.44 ps. (Rupees Sixteen thousand two hundred twenty and forty four paisa only), after such withdrawal. On 05.03.2013, the Complainant after obtaining a Mini Statement from ATM against his S.B Account noticed that a sum of Rs.15,000/- has also been withdrawn from the said account on 18.02.2013. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged written allegation before the O.P No.4 on 06.03.2013, subsequently, lodged written allegations before O.P No.3 on 08.03.2013 and on 17.07.2013. Lastly, the Complainant through his Advocate served legal notice to the O.Ps on 11.02.2014, but the O.Ps remained silent in the matter. The Complainant through his Advocate notice requested the O.Ps to provide the following documents:-  

            (a) Transaction detail of Transaction I.D No.5113 of A.T.M (of S.B.I, Soro On-Site Bhubaneswar) in which Rs.4,000/- is withdrawn from Petitioner’s A/c on 18.02.2013.

            (b) Transaction detail of Transaction I.D No.3200 of A.T.M (of S.B.I, Soro On-Site-II, Soro) in which Rs.15,000/- is withdrawn from Petitioner’s A/c on 18.02.2013.

            (c) The photocopies of both above Transactions captured by your both A.T.Ms and also by your C.C Cameras.

                         Which would prove, who is the person who withdrew the money from the account of the Petitioner through ATM counter situated at Soro coming under the jurisdiction of the O.P No.3.

                         As per the information provided by O.P No.4 “the transaction of Rs.15,000/- on 18.02.2013 at 20.21 P.M from ATM (Machine ID No.S10B00798003) through ATM card No.6220180001600105868 from the Complainant’s A/c No.00000011157690345 did not sufficient that the Complainant is the author of said withdrawal. Prayer for refund for loss of ATM withdrawal and compensation for mental agony sustained by the Complainant.

                    2. The Complainant has relied upon the documents filed through his Advocate on 07.03.2017 along with written Argument to this effect.

                    3. Sufficient opportunities were given to all the O.Ps to appear and file their written version. Though the O.Ps No.3 & 4 made their appearance, but they did not file their written version. Hence, all the O.Ps are set ex-parte.

                    4. On perusal of the documents available in the case record filed by Complainant, it is noticed that:-

(i) The Complainant after obtaining the Mini Statement on 05.03.2013 came to know about the alleged withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- on 18.02.2013 through ATM installed by the O.Ps. Thereafter, the Complainant made a complain before the O.P No.4 vide R.L No.RO495946543IN dt.07.03.2013 and another complain made before O.P No.3 on 08.03.2013, which is duly acknowledged by O.P No.3 under seal and signature of O.P-Bank.

(ii) The Complainant again on 17.07.2013 had dispatched a letter to the O.P No.3 vide Regd. letter No.RO474331487IN, dt.17.07.2013 for supply of information about withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- dt.18.02.2013. The Complainant sought for following information in order to put forth his claim, which read as under:-   

            (a) Transaction detail of Transaction I.D No.5113 of A.T.M (of S.B.I, Soro On-Site Bhubaneswar) in which Rs.4,000/- is withdrawn from Petitioner’s A/c on 18.02.2013.

            (b) Transaction detail of Transaction I.D No.3200 of A.T.M (of S.B.I, Soro On-Site-II, Soro) in which Rs.15,000/- is withdrawn from Petitioner’s A/c on 18.02.2013.

   and (c) The photocopies of both above Transactions captured by your both A.T.Ms and also by your C.C Cameras.

(iii) Again, Receipt of the said letter is duly acknowledged by the O.P No.3 on 18.07.2013. On 11.02.2014, the Complainant issued legal notices to O.Ps No.1 to 3 through his Advocate vide Regd. letter & AD, dt.11.02.2014, which is acknowledged by them (Copies of Acknowledgement card is filed by the Complainant and annexed herewith).

(iv) Account details vide complaint dt.14.03.2013 of S.B A/c No.11157690345 vide ATM Card No.6220180001600105868 for Transaction date 18.02.2013 filed by the Complainant is revealed under product/Services details as “Account debited but cash not dispensed: SBI:SBI/ A/C DEBITED BUT CASH NOT DISPENSHED” under 3200.DOC.doc, it is further revealed “Requested amount-15000, Dispended amount-0, disputed amount-15000 under ATM ID: Txn. No.S10B007980003:3200/20214952/000.

(v) Original Passbook updated up to 03.10.2016 filed by the Complainant is revealed that alleged ATM withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- on 18.02.2013 is not appropriated by the O.Ps till that date.

(vi) Though the O.Ps No.3 & 4 made their appearance and the Complainant file a petition before this Forum to direct the O.Ps to produce some related documents, but the O.Ps did not file the same as per direction of the Forum on 19.02.2014.

                    5. Basing on the materials available in the case record, it has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that when it came to notice of the Complainant about the withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- from his account, he approached the Bank Authority about such withdrawal claiming that he has not withdrawn the same amount. But the Bank Authority without giving any importance to his claim/ allegation remained silent, though it is the duty of the Bank Authority to satisfy its Customer about this transaction to his account is genuine and proper. But in the same case, by remaining silent by the Bank Authority not only it creates a doubt in the mind of the Complainant, but in general it shows that some mischievous activities have been taken place. If Bank would have taken a little pain, the matter should have been settled. So, it amounts to deficiency-in-service on the part of the Bank, for which the Complainant is to be compensated accordingly.   

                    6. So after careful consideration of all the materials as discussed above, I am in the opinion that the Bank is liable to return a sum of Rs.15,000/- along with Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation. Hence, it is Ordered:- 

                                                                                   O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against the O.Ps with cost. The O.Ps are directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- along with Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this Order, failing which the entire amount of Rs.18,000/- will carry interest @ 6% per annum till realization. The Complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 25th day of March, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.