22/04/16

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT           

             This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Howrah in case no.CC 56 of 2013 allowing the complaint and directing the OP Bank to credit the sum of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the Complainant and to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of order failing which the interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue from the date of default till realisation. 

            The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that on 21/11/11 at about 8 a.m. he went to the ATM counter of ICICI Bank at Howrah Station Basement to withdraw the sum of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM counter.  But the machine did not respond and he left the ATM counter after cancelling the transaction.  But some time thereafter he got message about the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-.  On the next day he went to the ICICI Bank and informed the Bank of the said matter.  On 28/11/11 he lodged G.D. Entry No.2014 dated 28/11/11.  On 18/03/13 the Bank Authority sent a letter to him informing that there was successful withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 21/11/11.  Under such circumstances, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has stated that as per ATM log there was successful withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- by the Complainant from the ATM counter on 21/11/11.  The Learned Counsel has referred to the decision of this Commission in case nos.FA 173 of 2011, FA 170 of 2012, FA 38 of 2012.

            The Respondent in person has submitted that the video footage was not produced by the Bank before the Learned District Forum and there is no evidence from the side of the OP Bank that the Complainant had withdrawn the money. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  In the decision reported in 2011(2) CPR 20 (NC) [SBI Vs. K. K. Bhalla] it has been held that in view of the elaborate procedure evolved by Bank it is not possible to withdraw money by an unauthorized person without ATM card and knowledge of PIN and the allegation of fraud cannot be accepted.  In the decision reported in I (2013) CPJ 749 (NC) [State Bank of India vs. Omprakash Saini] it has been held that non-supply of video footage had no bearing on the claim of Complainant in respect of withdrawal from ATM.  In another decision reported in I (2015) CPJ 254 (NC) [Raghabendra Nath Sen & Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank] it has been held that even if amount was withdrawn by third person he would have done it by using ATM card provided to him by Complainant and ATM PIN disclosed by him and in such a case there was no deficiency in service.  Having heard both sides and relying on the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Bank.  The Complainant was not entitled to get any relief.  The Learned District Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint.

            The Appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment is set aside.  The petition of complaint is dismissed.