CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/462/17

          Date of Institution:-    14.09.2017

          Order Reserved on:- 29.05.2024

                Date of Decision:-      18.07.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Janardan Prasad

House No.C-32,

MahilaMohalla,MadanpurKhadar,

New Delhi - 110075

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

Manager

State Bank of India

Commercial Complex,

Nagal Raya, Delhi Cantt.

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe is having bank account no.20136576730 with OP. On 09.07.2017 at 9.29AM, he went to ATM, SaritaVihar where he tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/-. A receipt no.9138 was generated which bears the words ‘unable to process’.He complained to the guard who told to use another machine. He tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- at 9.30AM from another machine and again one receipt bearing no.9131 was generated showing a successful transaction of Rs.10,000/-. The machine did not dispense Rs.10,000/-. On 23.07.2017, he contacted the branch and lodged the complaint no.3193249858. On 05.08.2017, DD No.28B was lodged at Police Station. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the reply with the averments that on 09.07.2017 at 9.26 AM complainant went to ATM, H-Block, SaritaVihar and used his ATM card vide transaction no.7925. At 9.27AM, he used his card again vide transaction no.7926 and withdraw Rs.10,000/- from ATM. The transactions no.7925 and 26 were successful which are also shown in the EJ Log. The PIN No. was only known to the complainant to withdraw the money. The complainant has not intentionally disclosed the transactions no.7925 and 26.The complainant then moved to second ATM bearing ID No.S10G017036019 installed in the same cabin at 9.29AM and used the card vide transaction no.9138 knowingly to create evidence but withdrawal was declined by ATM as balance was insufficient and response code 094-unable to process was shown in the transaction slip. AT 9.30AM, the complainant again done transaction no.9139 and mini statement was generated showing that Rs.10,000/- has already been withdrawn by him.The complainant has concealed the other two transactions. The machine declined the amount as balance was insufficient. The present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficieny of service on the part of the OP and rather complainant has concealed the facts. No FIR has been registered. The complainant has neither requested to provide CCTV footage nor deposited the charges for checking CCTV footage. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the compliant and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW-1/A to CW-1/C.

6. TheOP has filed the affidavit of Sh. R. K. Batra, Manager, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.OPW1/1 to OPW-1/3.

7. We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OP and perused the entire material on record.

8. The complainant is maintaining the saving bank account with OP which has issued ATM card to the complainant.

9. On09.07.2017 at 9.29AM and 9.30AM,the complainant has used the ATM card. The transaction slip no.9138 was generated in the first attempt which bears the words “sorry unable to process”. The second transaction slip no.9139 was generated which bears the word that Rs.10,000/- has already been withdrawn.

10. The perusal of the evidence on record shows that the complainant has also done two transactions on 09.07.2017 in between 9.26AM – 9.30 AM at H-Block, SaritaVihar, New Delhi. The first transaction no.7825shows the balance of Rs.11795.06/- in the account of the complainant wherein second transaction no.7926 shows withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM by using ATM Card by leaving the balance of Rs.1795.06/- in the account. This is clear from Annexure-OP1 of the OP.

11. The complainant has simply denied both these transactions. Mere denial is not enough. The complainant should have amended the complaint by adding both these transactions which he did not do for the reasons best known to him. The statement of account Ex.OP3 shows the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- vide ATM transaction no.7926. There is no debit of amount vide transationno.9139 from the account of the complainant. It shows that no amount was withdrawn from the transaction no.9139. The question of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- does not arise when the balanceamount was Rs.1795.06/-. This supports the version of the OP that there was no withdrawal vide transaction no.9139. It only shows that sum of Rs.10,000/- has already been withdrawn.

12. There is no reference of transactions no.7925 and 7926 by the complainant in the complaint. The complainant has not amended his complaint even after getting the reply, statement of account and EJ log record from the OP. There is no explanation from the complainant about the transaction no.7925 and 26. The complainant has concealed both these transactions from this Commission which creates a doubt over his version. There is nothing on record to view the EJ log record as well as statement of account furnished by the OP with the aid of spectacles.

13. The entire material on the record does not show an amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn vide transaction no.9139 or same was debited from the account of the complainant vide transaction no.9139.

14. In view of above discussion, the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations as set out in the complaint. No deficiency of service is found on the part of OP and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 18.07.2024.