Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/1

GURMEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR
 

                                                Consumer Complaint No.01 of 2020

                                                Date of institution: 01.01.2020

                                                Date of Decision: 05.03.2021

 

Gurmeet Singh, son of Guljar Singh, resident of House No.10, HH Nangal Township, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar  

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Manager, State Bank of India, Near Senior Secondary School, Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar

 

2. Manager, State Bank of India, College Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                        Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present: Sh. Gurmeet Singh, complainant in person 

     Sh. S.K. Bhanot, Adv. counsel for O.Ps.  

 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Order

1. The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs for short) on the ground that the CC is working in B.B.M. Nangal as a pump operator and is having account bearing No.30890122146 with the State Bank of India, Nangal, falls within the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is also averred that even his salary comes to this account opened with OP No.1.  It is alleged that on 04.11.2019, the CC operated the SBI ATM Machine, situated at College Road, near Patrol Pump, Ropar, in order to withdraw the amount of Rs.20,000/- having transaction No.9209 and SBI, ATM is SIBC006342014. It is alleged that the alleged payment of Rs.20,000/- was not affected and the amount did not come out from the ATM machine. It is further averred that when the payment did not come out from the ATM machine then he went to the another ATM Machine, near City Police Station and withdrew Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, CC received two messages on his mobile for the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and of Rs.20,000/-. CC immediately contacted the Manager of the OP No.2 and sought the information regarding the mobile message showing the withdrawal of Rs.20,000/-. On this, the Manager referred the complainant to the Head Cashier, who took out a paper from the computer, which was showing that out of the account of the CC, an amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/- had gone to the CM Relief Fund, Orrisa. Copy of the same is attached with the complaint. Thus, it is alleged that due to the technical defect in the ATM Machine and other machines of the OPs, CC had to suffer a loss of Rs.20,000/-.Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the CC sought a refund of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.  In reply, the OP No.1 has challenged the veracity of the complaint on the ground of locus standi, not approaching this Commission with clean hands, concealment of facts etc. It is alleged that the CC himself operated and transferred Rs.20,000/- on 4.11.2019 to Chief Minister Relief Fund, Orrisa from the College Road Branch of OP No.2 and as per the system, the transaction was found successful. It is alleged that as per EJ Log, presented by the CC himself, it is clear that customer had done the transaction of donation of Rs.20,000/- in the said ATM to the CM Relief Fund, Orrisa and this fact has been confirmed by the ATM Switch Centre and transaction was shown successful.  Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The version is signed by the OP No.1 but the name of the Branch Manger is not mentioned by the OP No.1 for the reasons best known to him only.
3. The OP No.2 has filed the written version but surprisingly the version is not signed by any officer of the bank, it is simply signed by the Advocate. The OP No.2 has also adopted the version of the OP No.1 and has raised the similar objections which the OP No.1 has raised, lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant in support of his complaint has tendered into evidence the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. has tendered the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 
5. We have heard the complainant, learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.
6. After perusing the complaint, the version filed by the O.Ps. and the evidence on the file, the point in controversy before us is whether from the perusal of the allegations, a consumer dispute is made out between the CC and the OPs or not. The objections raised by the OPs on the ground of maintainability of the complaint appear to be vague and absurd. We feel, that the complaint of the CC is definitely maintainable. There is no evidence led by the OPs that the CC has not approached the court with clean hands, as such, the preliminary objections raised by the OPs are outrightly rejected. It is admitted fact that the CC is working as a Pump Operator and is an illiterate person. It is also admitted fact that his entire salary comes in the bank of the OP No.1 in his account, which is being maintained by the OPs. We feel, that since the CC was an illiterate person and is only working as a Pump Operator, it was also possible that he may not be knowing the proper functioning of this particular ATM Machine. In such peculiar circumstances, it was incumbent upon the OPs, to at least put a board or a guard who could guide such type of illiterate persons before the operation of the ATM Machine which was installed even for sending money that how the same is to be operated and how the transaction is to be done. We have seen that the 60% of the population in India is illiterate. There is no doubt, that the India is going through a transition period where for the last 10/15 years we are computerising the whole nation and even our dependence on the machines is increasing. At the same time, it is also the duty of the banks and other financial institutions to provide a proper know how to its customers and teach them to operate the ATM Machines etc. We have seen in a number of cases that the people having village background are not capable of operating the ATM Machines and Computers etc. We do not see any malice on the part of the CC, who appears to be an innocent person and has approached the Court of law with clean hands. Earlier, there were instances which have come to our knowledge that where the people had intended to vote for a particular party but there were complaints that their votes had gone to some other party and eyebrows were raised on the working of even EVM Machines.  
7. We feel, that it was also incumbent upon the OPs to at least help this poor CC in getting his money back from the CM Relief Fund, Orrissa. Since he never intended to pay any amount in the CM Relief Fund as he is a poor pump operator and getting a very small amount of salary. It is writ-large on the file that no steps, not even a correspondence was done by the bank with the Government of Orissa. We have seen in a so many cases, the adamant attitude adopted by various officers of the banks. We have seen how they behave with the innocent villagers and the general public, as and when, such type of people approach the officers with their grievances. It is on the file that the bank did nothing to get his money recovered from the CM relief Fund, Orissa, rather the bank is absolving its liability by raising technical objections and other objections against the CC. We feel, that the arguments of the learned Advocate for O.Ps. do not augur well for him.
8. In view of our above discussions, we feel, that there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., who are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of the CC to the tune of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. We also burden the O.Ps. jointly and severally to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the CC. The above said directions be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
9.  

March 05, 2021

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

•  

                                               

 

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

•