Haryana

StateCommission

A/301/2015

STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAMLESH RANI - Opp.Party(s)

SAVITA SAXENA

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      301 of 2015

Date of Institution:      30.03.2015

Date of Decision :       05.04.2016

 

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad Branch, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Resident of House No.337, Jawahar Colony, NIT Faridabad.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      State Bank of India, Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad Branch, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Sunny Deep Joneja, proxy counsel for Shri Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated February 23^rd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.533 of 2011.

2.      Kamlesh Rani-complainant/respondent No.1, maintained Saving Account No.10952917305 with State Bank of India (SBI), Faridabad/Opposite Party No.2 (respondent No.2 herein). He also availed the facility of Automated Teller Machine (for short ‘ATM’).

3.      The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that on March 17^th, 2011, she wanted to withdraw Rs.20,000/- from ATM of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur-Opposite Party No.1/appellant, but the amount was not received by her. She again used the ATM to withdraw the amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- but she did not receive the amount though a sum of Rs.40,000/- was debited from her account. She complained to the Manager of Opposite Party No.2, but of no avail. Alleging it deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The opposite party No.1 in its reply stated that on March 17^th, 2011, the ATM machine was in the proper working condition. As per record (J.P. Log), ATM was successfully used by the complainant and a sum of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn in one time (single transaction) successfully. It was specifically denied that the ATM was used three times. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

5.      The opposite party No.2 did not contest the complaint and was proceeded exparte.

6.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the opposite party No.1 as under:-

“9.     Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.40,000/-to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order to the complaint. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. However, the amount of compensation and litigation expenses shall be shared equally by opposite parties Nos.1 and 2.”

7.      Indisputably, the complainant maintained the account with SBI-Opposite Party No.2, however, she used the ATM card at the machine of State bank of Bikaner and Jaipur-Opposite Party No.1. The District Forum observed that amount was not disbursed and held the opposite party No.1 deficient in service and directed it to pay the amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.

8.      The complainant was the consumer of Opposite Parties No.2 having maintained her account with it. Merely that the complainant used the Automated Teller Machine of the opposite party No.1, cannot be a ground to fasten liability upon the opposite party No.1 because it was an inter se agreement of the opposite party No.2 with the opposite party No.1. Even otherwise, the complainant has alleged deficiency against the opposite party No.2 (SBI) and has sought relief only against opposite party No.2 (SBI) and not opposite party No.1-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Therefore, the District Forum could not fasten liability upon the opposite party No.1.  So, the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the amount of Rs.40,000/- and compensation etc. to the complainant, as ordered by the District Forum. It is ordered accordingly.

9.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 05.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL