O R D E R
Subhash Gupta, Member
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the bank account holder bearing No.32189185908 with the bank of OP-3 bank and also having ATM Card as well as cheque book facility of his account. On 09.03.2013 the complainant went out of Delhi to District Baghpat UP, where the ATM machine of OP-2 was installed at Jain Mohalla, Baghpat, UP. It is alleged that the complainant reached the ATM of OP-2 and processed for withdrawing an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter the ATM machine of OP-2 did not complete the process and the said amount was not disbursed by the ATM so the complainant left the ATM machine. Then after about 6-7 minutes complainant received the information by SMS by the bank of OP-3 that the said transaction was completed and the amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant. After the receipt of the SMS the complainant immediately reached the same ATM machine and concerned bank i.e. PNB. The concerned bank advised the complainant to send the complaint to customer care centre of OP-1. The OP-1 registered the complaint and assured that they will solve the said problem within 7 working days. It is alleged that on 12.3.2013 the complainant made a written complaint to the OP-3. The OP-3 issued the details of transaction after seeing the detailed transaction report the complainant was shocked and surprised that the said transaction dated 9.3.2013 time 15:01 P.M. D1270000 with transaction NO.17000 was completed and shows that the sum of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant. It has also been alleged that due to said conduct of OP-1 to 3 the complainant has suffered mentally as well as financially. On these facts complainant prays that OPs be directed to pay/return amount of Rs.10,000/- alongwith cost and compensation as claimed.
2. OPs appeared and filed their written statements. In its written statement SBI OP-1 has not disputed that complainant is a bank account hold bearing No.32189185908 with its branch i.e. OP-3 and complainant is also having the ATM card as well as Cheque book. It is alleged that the complainant had made ATM transaction at the ATM of OP-2 installed at Jain Mohalla, Baghpat, UP, the said transaction was initiated at 15.01 PM on 9.3.2013. The ATM transaction records of the OP-2 reflects that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- on 9.3.2013 at 15:01 PM from card No.5196200017118406 vide transaction No.1470. It is stated that the complainant mentioned that the said ATM machine at Jain Mohalla did not function on that day, whereas the records of the ATM transactions and JP logs show that the transactions at 14:74 PM, 14:48PM, 15:01PM, 15:09PM and 15:11 PM were successful and there was no technical problem with the ATM machine. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1, 2 & 3. It is submitted by OP-2 that ATM transaction was initiated at 15:01 PM through its ATM at Bhaghpat and Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn vide transaction No.1470 and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts made in the complaint. On the other hand Sh. Yogesh Kr. Luthra Power of Attorney Holder of PNB (UP)-OP-2 and Sh. Rajesh Khurana, Manager of OP-3 have also filed affidavits alongwith documents in evidence on behalf of OPs.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OPs.
5. Scrutiny of the documentary evidence i.e. Transaction Report of ATM filed on behalf of OP-2 categorically reveals that ATM machine was in perfect working condition as apparent for Annexure-A. It shows that transactions on 9.3.2013 from 14.31 PM to 15.29 PM were recorded. It shows that complainant vide transaction No.1740 recorded at 15.01 PM on 9.3.2013 withdrew Rs.10,000/- from his ATM Card No.5916200017118406. This document which has been filed as Annexure-A by OP-2 falsify the claim of the complainant that the ATM was out of order and no transaction was carried out by the ATM machine on 9.3.2013. OP-1 & 2 has therefore, rightly debited the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the account of the complainant. The complainant in rebuttal of this document has not furnished and documentary evidence to support his case. It is settled legal position that documentary evidence shall have precedence upon oral evidence. In view of above discussion we have considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service by the OPs. Hence the complaint is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 08th day of December, 2015.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (MRS. SHAHINA)
President Member Member
