IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/196/2017
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
23.11.2017 30.11.2017 02.04.2024
Complainant: 1) Amenur Islam,
S/o- Late Sahadat Hossain
Of Ratanpur, P.O.- Duckbunglow More,
P.S.-Samserganj,
Dist- Jalpaiguri
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742202
-Vs-
Opposite The Manager,
United Bank of India,
Duckgunglow More, P.O.- Ratanpur,
P.S.- Samserganj, Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-732202
Agent/Advocate for the Complainants : Prabir Kumar Banerjee
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : S. Saha
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Amenur Islam (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Manager, United Bank of India (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant have a saving account under the O.P. Bank bearing A/C No. 1668010000806 and he maintained regular transactions with the O.P. Bank and when he wanted to withdraw Rs. 10000/- from S.B.I. A.T.M. Customer Centre at Kanchantala on 11.05.2017 at 10.22 a.m. the Complainant did not receive the said amount for failing function of ATM but unfortunately Rs. 10000/- had been deducted from his account. The said amount of Rs. 10000/- was very much essential for his expenses for buying some household articles but he could not get the said money as the ATM machine was not functioning and the Complainant subsequently prayed before the Branch Manager for releasing the amount in favour of the Complainant but the O.P. paid no heed to that effect and did not give any such amount to the Complainant.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
O.P. is contesting this case by filing written version wherein all material allegations have been denied by him and he asserted that the Complainant withdrew Rs. 10,000/- from ATM Centre of SBI Kanchantala. As per request of the Complainant this O.P. by their utmost endeavor collected information from S.B.I. This O.P. has no responsibility or liability in the matter of transaction by using S.B.I. ATM Centre.
On the basis of the complaint and written version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer to the O.P. Ld. Advocate for the O.P. raises no objection on this point. However, we peruse the materials on record. Keeping in mind the submissions advanced by the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the O.P. The point No. 1 is thus decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that he wanted to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- from S.B.I. ATM Customer Care at Kanchantala on 11.05.2017 at 10.22 a.m. but the Complainant did not receive the said amount due to failure of transaction but unfortunately the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been deducted from his saving account. He prays for returning the said amount of Rs. 10,000/-.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits that the Complainant withdrew Rs. 10,000/- from ATM Centre of SBI Kanchantala. As per request of the Complainant this O.P. by their utmost endeavor collected information from S.B.I. This O.P. has no responsibility or liability in the matter of transaction by using S.B.I. ATM Centre. He submitted the relevant papers regarding the ATM transactions in question wherefrom it is found that the Complainant withdrew Rs. 10,000/- on 05.11.2017 at 11.22 a.m. He has also filed complaint register regarding debit card transaction wherefrom it is found that at the request of the Complainant the matter was enquired into and the claim of the Complainant was rejected.
It would not be out of place to mention here that the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits before this Commission that production of the CCTV footage is very much essential for the purpose of deciding the fact in question. On this point Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits that the Complainant used the ATM Machine of SBI and the SBI is not a party to this case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the parties and the documents filed we are of the view that the O.P. has been able to rebut the allegations made by the Complainant and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 23.11.2017 and admitted on 30.11.2017. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/196/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
