JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.             The petitioner/complainant had an account with G.T. Road, Karnal Branch of Punjab National Bank.  He was issued an ATM card by the aforesaid bank, to enable him to make transaction at the ATMs.  The petitioner/complainant went to an ATM location of the bank on 25.12.2012 in order to make withdrawals from his account, using the ATM card issued to him.  The first two attempts were unsuccessful.  The case of the complainant is that since those two attempts remained unsuccessful, he withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the other ATM of the bank installed in the same premises.  He also received a message showing withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- as well from his account.  His attempts to make further withdrawal did not succeed since the machine indicated that the daily limit of Rs.25,000/- had already been utilized.  The petitioner/complainant went to the concerned branch of the bank on the next working day as 25.12.2012 was a holiday and made a complaint that despite his having withdrawn only Rs.10,000/-, a sum of Rs.25,000/- had been debited in his account, thereby showing excess debit of Rs.15,000/- in his account.  Since the bank did not address his grievance, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by the bank primarily on the ground that in fact two withdrawals were made by the complainant on 25.12.2012, the first withdrawal being for Rs.10,000/- and the second withdrawal being for Rs.15,000/-. 

3.      The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the bank to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant alongwith compensation and interest amounting to Rs.5,500/-.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 08.06.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.  Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 

5.      The only question which rises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner/complainant withdrew Rs.15,000/- from his account using the ATM card for this purpose on 25.12.2012 or not.  It is admitted position that both the ATMs were installed in the same premises.  It is also not in dispute that first two attempts to withdraw the cash remained unsuccessful.  As per the record of the bank, in addition to withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- at 02:15 pm vide transaction no. 6203, the complainant had also withdrawn a sum of Rs.15,000/- at 02:09 pm vide transaction no. 6199.  It is the alleged transaction vide transaction no. 6199 at 02:09 pm for Rs.15,000/- which is in dispute.  No transaction number is shown in the ATM slips generated in respect of the unsuccessful transactions.  Therefore, had the petitioner not withdrawn Rs.15,000/- vide transaction no. 6199, the aforesaid transaction number would not have been generated by the system of the bank in his name.  More importantly, had he not withdrawn Rs.15,000/- vide transaction no. 6199, the aforesaid amount would have become an extra amount in the record of the bank.  No such excess amount was shown in the record of the bank.  This clearly indicates that the said amount of Rs.15,000/- was actually withdrawn vide transaction no. 6199. 

6.      The petitioner/complainant submits that since there was an unsuccessful transaction at 02:09 pm itself, he could not possible have withdrawn a sum of Rs.15,000/- at the same time.  I however, find myself unable to accept the contention.  The system of the bank was indicating the time only in hours and minutes and not in seconds.  There being 60 seconds in a minute, it was very much possible for the complainant to make a successful transaction at the adjoining machine at 02:09 pm itself.  Therefore, the view taken by the State Commission, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.   The revision petition is therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.