Haryana

StateCommission

A/238/2019

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIRMALA KUMARI - Opp.Party(s)

ABHINEET TANEJA

14 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:05.03.2021

                Date of final hearing:29.05.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement:14.06.2024

 

First Appeal No.238 of 2019

 

IN THE MATTER OF

1.       State Bank of India, Mini Secretariat, Branch Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

2.       Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, SCO No.77-BE, Sector-13 Market, Kurukshetra.

.….Appellants.

Through counsel Mr. Abhineet Taneja, Advocate

Versus

Nirmala Kumari W/o Shri Rajinder Kumar; (deceased) through LRs:-

1.      Sachin son of Nirmala Kumari,

2.      Mehak daughter of Nirmala Kumari,

3.      Rajinder Kumar husband of Nirmala Kumari.

All residents of House No.1503, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

…..Respondents.

Through counsel Mr. Vishal Saini, Advocate

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Pulkit Goyal, counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. Vishal Saini, counsel for LRs of respondent.

 

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

          Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.12.2018, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (‘learned District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite parties (“OPs”) were directed as under:-

“So, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.9,000/- and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable. Order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount i.e. Rs.9,000/- from the date of institution of this complaint till realization.”  

2.                The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that the complainant was a diabetic patient from the last 10 years and due to which she is unable to stand for a long in a queue outside the ATM Machine of the OPs and therefore, she used to withdraw the amount from the ATM Machine through her son namely Sachin. It was alleged that on 10.04.2017 at about 10.15 A.M. the complainant sent her son to withdraw a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the ATM Machine installed at Panchayat Bhawan, Mini Secretariat, Kurukshetra and when the son of complainant gave a command regarding the withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- an amount of Rs.11,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- came out of the said ATM Machine. Moreover, the amount of Rs.20,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant made several complaints to the OPs as well as customer care centre of OPs but the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.                Upon notice, OPs have appeared before learned District Commission and filed their joint written version by raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, it was submitted that as per record, the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- was successful and no excess money was found in the ATM machine. The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint and directions were issued to the OPs as mentioned in para 1^st (supra).

5.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-OPs has preferred this appeal for setting-aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

6.                Arguments have been advanced by Shri Abhineet Taneja, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Vishal Saini, learned counsel for respondents. With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

7.                The only issue involved in the present matter is that as to whether an amount of Rs.20,000/- was disbursed from the ATM of appellants-Ops on 10.04.2017 or not?

8.                As per learned counsel for respondent-complainant on 10.04.2017 complainant-Nirmala Kumari (deceased) sent her son to withdraw a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the ATM Machine installed at Panchayat Bhawan, Mini Secretariat, Kurukshetra, but an amount of Rs.11,000/- was disbursed instead of Rs.20,000/- through transaction No.7839 and the amount of Rs.20,000/- was also deducted from the bank account. Thereafter, her son took mini statement vide transaction No.7840 and lodged a complaint on toll free number. On the other hand, as per appellants-OPs the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- was successful and no excess money was found in the ATM machine. Further, the perusal of JP log sheet clearly shows the transaction of Rs.20,000/- and the ATM log sheet which shows that after the transaction of Rs.20,000/- the balance in ATM was reduced from 5,36,000/- to Rs.5,16,700/-.

9.                Perusal of impugned order clearly reveals that learned District Commission allowed the complaint only on the ground that there is a missing serial number in transaction between No. 7839 to 7843 (Annexure R-1 before learned District Commission) and observed that it was manipulated document. In fact, transaction No.7840, 7841 and 7842 were missing and in considered view of this Commission there is also a possibility that the said transactions were either unsuccessful or were used for the purpose other than withdrawal and learned District Commission failed to consider this fact.  Moreover, learned District Commission also observed that the CCTV footage was also not placed on record, In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that CCTV footage had no relevance in the present case as the JP log sheet and ATM log sheet clearly showed the successful withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- and the said JP log sheet also contained other transactions which are accepted worldwide as proof of ATM transaction. In support of his version, learned counsel for appellants has also placed reliance of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as “Satyanarayan Pandey Vs. Branch manager, State Bank of India & Anr.” In Revision Petition No.2988 of 2015  decided on 21.06.2017, wherein it has been held that:-

“Generally ATM cards and ATM machines are safe and if the transaction is not successful, it is shown on the screen on the ATM as well as on the slip issued by the ATM. Even if some money is transacted but not delivered, the same is reversed to the account of the ATM card holder. As the documents of the bank showed that the transactions were successful and Rs.20,000/- was delivered to the person using the ATM card and no proof on the contrary has been filed by the complainant/petitioner, it is difficult to find any fault in order dated 23.09.2015.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdiction error in the order dated 23.09.2015 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.”

 

The citation discussed above is fully attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus, do not provide any benefit to the present respondent-complainant. Thus, it is established that respondent-complainant is not entitled for any benefit from the appellants in the present matter.

10.              Thus, the present appeal stands allowed and impugned order dated 14.12.2018 passed by learned District Commission is set-aside.

11.              Statutory amount of Rs.10,200/- deposited at the time of present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt, identification and as per rules.

12.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.              Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

14.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 14^th June, 2024                                               S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench-III