IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 59/2021 (filed on 08-03-2021)
Petitioner : Mary Abraham,
W/o. Abraham,
Kottoor Vadakkethil House,
Pampady P.O. Kottayam.
(Adv. Aravind M.R. and
Adv.Rahul Gopinath)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : (1) Post Master,
Pambady Post Office,
Pambady P.O. Pambady village,
Kottayam Taluk, Kottayam.
(2) State Bank of India,
Rep. by Zonal manager,
Polackal Chambers,
Collectorate P.O. Kottayam
Pin – 686002.
(Adv. P.G. Girija)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings of the complainant, necessary for the proper adjudication of the present complaint are that the complainant is an account holder with the first opposite party having savings bank account No. ID 4245347784 and also holds an ATM card relating to the said savings account. On 16-09-2020, P.M. Abraham who is the husband of the complainant went to withdraw Rs.10,000/- by using the ATM card of the complainant from the ATM machine of the second opposite party bank situated at Pezhamattam building Pamapdy. However, on insertion of her ATM card into the machine and given command of Rs.10,000/-, the ATM did not dispense the cash but the account was debited for the said amount.
Further, the complainant immediately informed about the failed transaction to the second opposite party then it was told to her by the second opposite party to lodge a complaint before the first opposite party and the second opposite party has no responsibility regarding the ATM. It was further informed that usually the amount will be credited within stipulated days to the account of the complainant. A written complaint was also lodged for this failed transaction by the complainant to the first opposite party. As there was no response the complainant on 19-11-20 sent a reminder to the first opposite party. Lastly on 24-2-21 the complainant received a letter from the postal complaint authority stating that “the transaction dated 16-9-20 was successful, hence the case cannot be proceeded further”.
It is averred in the complaint that the opposite parties did not inspect the ATM machine and its visuals. The non disbursal of amount to the complainant and the inaction of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for a direction to the first opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with interest and to direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
Upon notice second opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version. Though the notice was duly served to the first opposite party they did not care to appear before the commission and to file version. Hence, first opposite party was set ex-party. Version of the second opposite party is as follows:
As per records, (Journal Data) dated 16-9-20, the E. J. log of the transaction clearly shows that the currency note worth Rs.10,000/- were successfully dispensed at the ATM counter with respect to the card no. 608072xxxxxx2784 at 8.42 A.M on 16-9-20. The complainant herself has admitted that on completion of the procedures, the intimation ‘collect cash’ appeared the screen. The averment that neither the cash counter window opened nor the money was dispensed is false. There was no complaints of like nature also with regard to the alleged ATM counter ever. No excess money was also reported in the ATM machine on that day. No complaint was received from the complainant to the second opposite party either on 6-9-20 or any other date regarding the alleged complaint. The first opposite party where the complainant is maintaining her account is responsible for the alleged grievance. The first opposite party has not raised any charge back complaint to the second opposite party during the period of the alleged transaction.
Whenever a customer uses his ATM card to withdraw cash, the card number and PIN are first validated at ATM switch centre (ASC), by the ATM machine. Then the customer’s account with the Core Data Centre (CDC) where the account details of the customer are stored is verified, and if sufficient balance is available to meet the withdrawal, the message is sent to the ATM via ASC and the ATM dispenses the cash.
Simultaneously, the customer’s account is debited directly and credit posted to ATM branch cash balance a/c online. In the ATM the transaction is recorded in Electronic Journal log and in the ASC the transaction is recoded in ATM log. If the transaction is successful and cash is dispensed by the ATM, the EJ log and ATM log will show the transaction as successful. If the transaction is success response code in EJ log will be 000 and if the transaction is not successful EJ log will show response code as error. In the present case as per the records in the ATM and ASC, the ATM has dispensed the money and the transaction has been shown as successful in EJ log. As per the terms and conditions of issue of ATM the ATM card is not transferrable and the card holder is also bound to keep the Pin number confidentially. The complainant has handed over the ATM card and disclosed the four digits PIN to her husband and the same amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the card usage. The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1 to A6 from the side of the complainant.
Jayashankar J.A who is the chief manger of the SBI, Changanssery branch filed proof affidavit I lieu of chief examination and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked for and on behalf of the second opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint version, evidence on record we would like to consider the following points?
(1)Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) If so what are the reliefs and costs?
Point number 1 and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant is an account holder with the first opposite party having savings bank account No. ID 4245347784 and holds an ATM card relating to the said saving account. The specific case of the complainant is that on 31.10.2020, when P.M. Abraham who is the husband of the complainant tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- by using the ATM card of the complainant from the ATM machine of the second opposite party bank, but the ATM did not dispense the cash but the account was debited for the said amount. It is proved by exhibit A1 mini statement of account that Rs.10,000/- has been credited from the account of the complainant on 31.10.2020.
On perusal of material before us, it is evident that the complainant immediately i.e. on 16-9-2020 informed about the failed transaction to the first opposite party, filed a written complaint vide exhibit A2. It is submitted by the complainant that she informed the failed transaction to the second opposite party on the same day itself. As there was no response the complainant again lodged exhibit A3 complaint on 19-11-20 before the first opposite party. It is proved by exhibit A6 that only on 24-2-21 the first opposite party gave a reply to the complainant stating that the transaction was successful, hence the case cannot be proceeded further.
As per the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) circular NPCI/2012-13/NFS/2737 dated 26.03.2013, all banks have to facilitate providing CCTV recording of failed ATM transactions to bank customers when they ask for it. However, in the present case, the second opposite party had failed to provide the CCTV footage of the ATM concerned to complainant.
On perusal of record before us, we also find that the second opposite party had only filed EJ log which is marked as Exhibit B1 and B2 which is no excess cash report and had failed to provide switch report, and CCTV footage in order to prove their contention that the cash was properly dispensed and the transaction was successful. Mere bald statement by the second opposite party without any evidence will not justify their contention.
We are of the view that the first opposite party has failed to discharge their duty as they did not call for and checked any JP log SMS or switch report or CCTV footage of the concerned ATM by the second opposite party and had not even filed any evidence to show to this commission that the money has been collected by the complainant on the subject date.
The failure of the first opposite party to produce evidence with respect that the ATM transaction was successful and the cash was properly dispensed from the ATM machine on 16-9-20 has proven fatal to this case.
In order to give effect to the objective of this Act, i.e. to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers, if the complainant is able to create a reasonable degree of probability that there was deficiency on the part of the opposite party, the onus would shift to the Opposite Party to discharge the onus to prove its denial.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we allow the complaint and direct the first and second opposite parties to refund Rs.10,000/- which had been debited from the account of complainant along with the interest @9% from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, we also award Rs.7,500/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony inclusive litigation cost is in consonance with the settled principles of law. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of August, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Mini statement
A2 – Copy of letter dtd.16-09-20 by petitioner to the 1st opposite party
A3 – Copy of letter dtd.19-11-2019
A4- Letter dtd.25-01-21 from petitioner to the SBI Ombudsman
A5-E-mail communication dtd.25-02-2021
A6 – Letter dtd.24-02-21 from petitioner to the Sub Post Master, Pambady.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of EJ log dtd.16-09-20
B2 –Copy of No excess cash certificate dtd.17-08-21
By Order
Assistant Registrar
