The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Sri Nilay Bhaduri S/o

Nishit Kr. Bhaduri at present residing at Mokdumpur, Sahapara, P.O. Mokdumpur, Dist. Malda filed u/s 12 of Consumer Proteciton Act, 1986 and the said petition was registered before this Forum now renamed as Commission as Complaint Case No. 03/2018.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is an account holder of Savings Bank with the State Bank of India, Rathbari Branch, Malda bearing S.B. A/c. No. 31793170831. The said account was opened mainly by the complainant for deposit and withdrawal of his salary as the complainant is a Govt. employee under Govt. of West Bengal. The complainant also took an A.T.M. card through the account in question.

 On 22.11.2017 at about 08:30 P.M. the complainant swapped his A.T.M. at Mokdumpur A.T.M. Counter ( Opposite of Rishi Bankim Chandra Market, Mokdumpur) the complainant commanded for withdrawal of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only)  from the said A.T.M. counter. As soon as command was issued by the complainant lights started blinking but no money was ejected from the A.T.M. Machine. The complainant received S.M.S. to his mobile phone to the effect that Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) has been withdrawn/debited

from his account. As the complainant was in need of money again he swapped his A.T.M. Card and commanded from withdrawal of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only), this time  he also get message that Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) has been debited from his account though actually no money was ejected from A.T.M. in pursuance of this second command of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only). Within a fraction of time the complainant received a message of return of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) to his account. The complainant on the same day at 09:35 informed the Bank to its toll free number and the complainant received confirmation from S.B.I. regarding acknowledgement of his receipt of complaint.

On 04.12.2017 the complainant lodged a written complaint to S.B.I. Rathbari Branch, Malda. But ultimately there was no fruitful result for which the complainant has come to this Forum/Commission to get his relief.

The petition has been contested by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 by filing written version denying all the material allegations as levelled against the O.P. contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable, in Law, it is barred by Law of limitation, the case is bad for misjoinder of parties.

 The definite defense case is that the transaction in question is a successful event as evident from J.P. Log and Switch Centre Report.

 The further defense case is that it is the duty of the person who is using A.T.M. Card i.e. the complainant to collect cash disbursed out from the machine and any negligence on the part of the complainant in collecting the cash cannot be treated as deficiency of service

The further defense case is that there is robust system put by the Bank in it’s A.T.M. Machine so that if A.T.M. Machine fails to disburse cash but amount has been debited from the account the transaction is reversed to the account holder in due course.

Considering such fact the case is liable to be dismissed.

In order to prove the case, the complainant filed his Examination-in-Chief and cross examined in the form of questionnaires. The complainant was himself examined as P.W.-1. No other witness was examined on behalf of complainant.

During trial the complainant has proved and marked the documents as Exts.1 Series.

On the other hand O.P. State Bank of India Rathbari Branch has examined its Branch Manager as O.P.W1 and he was cross-examined in the form of questionaires.

No other witness was examined on behalf of O.P. No document was proved and marked as exhibit.

Now the point for determination:-    Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

                             ::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that after the incident the complainant informed the Bank through tole free number and a complainant was registered.Later on the complainant informed the Local Bank i.e. S.B.I. Rathbari Bank on 14.12.2017. But ultimately there is no fruitful result.

On perusal of the written complaint which was filed before the Branch Manager, S.B.I. Rathbari Branch which has been marked Ext. 1 Series it is found that complainant prayed to the Branch to take necessary step for return of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) to the bank account on perusal of C.C. footage. But on perusal of the complaint it is found that the complainant did not demand for supply of the C.C.T.V. Footage.

The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant draws the attention of answer to the questionnaires of O.P.W1 that the

C.C.T.V. footage has not been supplied to the complainant as the complainant did not demand C.C. Footage within 90 (Ninety) days from the date of occurrence.

The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submitted that there is no rule that C.C. Footage is to be demanded within 90(Ninety) days. The Bank did not produce any rule.

In reply the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that it is general system and rule that C.C. footage is to be demanded within 90(Ninety) days. If demand of supply of C.C. footage is not made within 90(Ninety) days from the date of occurrence, it will be destroyed. As because it is not possible to preserve C.C. T.V. footage for a long time. If anyone demand 10(ten) years old C.C.T.V. footage, it is quite impossible.

The Forum is in the same view with the argument of the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. that the demand of C.C.T.V. footage is to be made within 90 (Ninety) days from the date of occurrence.

In this case the complainant has stated that he has not received Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand Only) on the other hand O.P. Bank has stated that the said amount has been dispensed with.

So C.C.T.V. footage is the best evidence to decide the dispute. But unfortunately the complainant did not damand the C.C.T.V. footage as when he had the knowledge about installation of C.C.T.V. in the A.T.M. counter which appears from the complaint that was lodged to the Branch Manager on 04.12.2017 and in the petition he prayed before the Bank Authority to take action on perusal of C.C.T.V. footage.

The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that if A.T.M. machine fails to disburse cash but the amount is debited but the transaction is reversed to the account holderin due course, this system is robust system.

The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. in order to strength his argument he draws the attention of this Forum that Rs. 7,500/- ( Rupees Seven Thousand Five

Hundred Only) was debited from the account of the complainant during second time transaction and the same amount was credited to the account of the complainant. So there was no defect in the A.T.M. Machine.

In this regard the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. refers a case law reported in IV (2017) CPJ 199(N.C.), wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that A.T.Ms are safe and if transaction is not successful, it is shown on screen on ATM as well as one slip was issued by A.T.M if the money is not delivered and the same is reversed to the account of A.T.M. Card Holder. So this case law is quite applicable for the instant case.

The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant refers a case law of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3369/2014 (T.N. Ravi Prakash Vs. The Manager S.B.I. Kolor). But this case law has no relation to the instant case as because the complainant did not ask for supplying C.C.T.V. footage. Moreover, no question was put to the Branch Manager that for not maintaining C.C.T.V. footage. Nor it is the case of the complainant that C.C.T.V. footage was not maintained.

 So considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the above discussion, the instant case is to liable to be dismissed.

                                       C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

 the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 without any cost.

       The O.P. No.2 is expunged from the case as O.P. No.3 is not under control of O.P. No.2.

Let a copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.