Heard learned counsel on behalf of appellant.

         2. This appeal has been filed U/S-15 of Consumer protection Act 1986(Herein after called the Act) against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi. The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.

  3.        The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that the Complainant submitted  cheque for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- dt. 27-11-2009 to L.I.C which was dishonoured by O.P No.1 as there is no balance in his account. The complainant approached O.P Bank on 13-12-2010 stating that Rs. 20,000/- is missing from his account but no action was taken by O.P.

              He also applied under RTI but no action was taken Therefore, the complaint was filed.

4.           The O.P filed written version stating that  the pass book is a joint account .The complainant has withdrawn Rs. 40,000/- on 28-11-2009 in both the ATMs on the said date respectively. The account stands in the name of complainant  and his wife  having account holder ,PIN holder of ATM used pin  no and both withdrawals were  successful  .The complainant has not approached  the matter to the O.P No.1 but Manjula Padhi informed O.P No.1 on 15-12.2009 with a proforma application . The O.P No.1 enquired and verified both the ATMs and found transactions was successful. The facts was explained to complainant and his wife and advised to report to police. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on his part.  

5.   After hearing both parties Learned District forum has passed following orders as follows:

   “There is deficiency of servie by the O.ps . the Forum orders directing the O.ps to pay Rs. 20,000/-interest @ 12% from 28-112009 till to the date of payment , Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of the case within 30 days from the date of this order 

6.         Learned counsel on behalf of appellant submitted that the complainant has successfully withdrawn of Rs. 40,000./-.They have enquired to such and submitted that as long as pin number of ATM has not been shared, withdrawal of money must be presumed to have been made by the account holder. Learned District forum without considering all the aspects passed impugned order and submitted to set aside the impugned order.

7          Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, DFR and impugned order.

8.       It has been held consistently by this commission that unless the complainant proved that his ATM card and pin No. have been shared or stolen, it would be presumed that account holder has successfully withdrawn the money from the ATM counter. In the instant case the complainant admitted to have joint account. He has not proved stolen of money and not proved the share of pin number. Thus, it is presumed that he has done so and bank has also found same on being enquired. When there is withdrawal of money, there would be insufficient fund in his account.

  9. In view of above, the entire impugned order is set aside and appeal stands allowed. No cost.                                           

11.    Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.