Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 21/02/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.291/2008, Manoj Ramsewak Chaursiya v/s. Manager, Bank of Baroda, Kalyan branch (Debit Card department), Kalyan (west) and another, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (‘forum’ in short).
It is the grievance of the complainant that on 11/03/2008 through ATM of Bank of Baroda, he wanted to withdraw an amount of `15,000/-. Accordingly, he tried to withdraw the said amount making unsuccessful attempts at 12.20 p.m., 12.21 p.m., 12.22 p.m., 12.23 p.m., 12.24 p.m. and 12.27 p.m. However, as per the bank statement, it was shown that at 12.25 p.m. the attempt was successful and `15,000/- were accordingly debited from the account of the complainant. Complainant submitted that since the every attempt to withdraw the amount was unsuccessful, said debit entry is incorrect and he asked the bank to rectify the same but in vain and, therefore, he filed the consumer complaint.
It was pointed out on behalf of the appellant (original opponents) that since using debit card the amount was withdrawn and since it marked as a successful transaction, automatically, the amount got debited (since it is a computer based system) and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank. However, the forum upholding the case of the complainant, directed the appellants/opponent nos.1 & 2, namely, Manager and Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda of respective branch/division to pay `15,000/- along with compensation of `5000/- and further costs of `1500/- to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved thereby, original opponents preferred this appeal.
At the time of hearing of the appeal, respondent/original complainant preferred to remain absent. We heard the Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the record.
Copies of Transaction slips of the relevant time of that particular ATM which was used by the complainant were placed on record. It could be seen that attempt to withdraw `15,000/- made at 12.22.39 p.m. was successful relating to the debit card used by the complainant and, accordingly, it was rightly debited from the account of the complainant. This information was also supplied to the Bank vide letter dated 26/03/2008 by the Debit Card Project department and which was communicated to the complainant also. There is hardly any evidence to show that this particular entry which is carried out in a routine course of business nay, automatically recording the transaction which is a computerized base data, is erroneous. Forum went on moral and hypothetical basis to hold deficiency in service on the part of the bank on this count. It is not based on any evidence tendered or appreciating the facts placed on record properly. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to hold any deficiency in service on the part of Bank of Baroda whose ATM was used by the complainant at the relevant time.
Apart from that if at all there is deficiency in service in the background of the circumstances complained by the complainant, it is on the part of Bank of Baroda which is a Nationalized bank and, as such, a separate and independent jurisdic person within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It’s Manager or Chief Manager are also separate, independent and distinct jurisdic persons and they themselves are not the bank. For this reason also awarding any relief against the Manager or Chief Manager, who were not service providers and, further, failing to consider that service provider is not party to the consumer complaint, impugned order cannot be supported in the eyes of law.
For the reasons stated above, holding accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 21/02/2009 stands set aside. In turn, the Consumer Complaint stands dismissed.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 22nd December, 2011.
