DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 363_ OF ___2015
DATE OF FILING : 12.8.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:17.05.2018
Present : President :
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Biswanath Halder, Vill. Dhamnagar, P.O Kundarali, P.S Baruipur, South 24-Parganas.
- VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, P.S Baruipur, South 24-Parganas.
2. United Bank of India, Moudi, P.S Bishnupur, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743503.
_____________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Subrata Sarker, Member
The nub of the complainant’s case is that he maintains a savings bank account being no. 1242215103060 with O.P-1 bank i.e Oriental Bank of Commerce, with ATM card facility. On 17.10.2014 he went to the ATM of UBI (O.P-2) at about 3.10 p.m located at Julpia, Kayaler more to withdraw Rs.3000/- and actually withdrew the same. But the said money was not sufficient enough to meet his necessity and, therefore, he made an attempt to withdraw Rs.10,000/- that day from the same ATM. Money was not withdrawn; but the message came that the sum of Rs.10,000/- had been debited from the account. He again tried to withdraw the sum of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM by using his ATM Card but this time also he faced the same result. No money was withdrawn ,but his account showed that Rs.20,000/- had been debited from it. The matter was reported to his parent bank i.e O.P-1 and the said bank asked the complainant to wait. He waited till 24.10.2014 and thereafter it was informed to the complainant that his complaint was rejected. So, he has come up before this Forum with the filing of the instant case under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 praying for refund of Rs.20,000/- ,compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The written statement is filed by the Oriental Bank of Commerce i.e O.P-1 ,wherein it is averred that a complaint was received from the complainant and the same was also sent to the O.P-2 Bank who has rejected the claim after thorough investigation. Complaint was also lodged by the complainant before the Banking Ombudsman ,alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank and the said complaint was also rejected and the fact of rejection of the said complaint was also communicated to the complainant . According to the version of O.P-1 the complainant withdrew Rs.20,000/- ( Rs.10,000/- each ) in two attempts on 17.10.2014 and transaction slip was also issued by ATM machine and the “System” automatically debited the amount from the account of the complainant. There is no manual system followed at present and the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Another written statement is filed by the O.P-2 United Bank of India. According to the version of this O.P, the complainant attempted to withdraw money for 8(eight) times and out of them three transactions were successful and five transactions failed. As the amount exceeded the maximum cash dispense limit i.e Rs.10,000/- for other bank customer at their ATM, complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint , and therefore, the complaint should be rejected.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service for unlawfully debiting of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant’s account as alleged ?
- Is the complainant entitled to relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidences, questionnaires, replies and BNAs filed by the parties are kept in the record.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers of both the parties. Perused the pleadings of the parties and also the evidence on record.
Considered all these.
It is the case of the O.P-2 Bank i.e United Bank of India that complainant withdrew Rs.23000/- on that very day i.e 17.10.2014 by using the ATM Card by way of 3 successful transactions. According to it, complainant not only used the ATM Card thrice only, but he used the same eight times. Five transactions failed, three transactions were successful, as goes the version of the O.P-2. The complainant has filed ATM Transaction Slips and by filing these slips it is stated by the complainant that these slips will go to prove that all the ATM transactions failed. Those slips are filed by the complainant before this Forum. But those slips cannot be properly read ,because the printing marks of these slips have gone vanished due to wear and tear. But one thing which comes to our notice is that the O.P-2 has no-where challenged the veracity of these ATM Transaction Slips. They have never stated anything in the written statement filed by them that the ATM Slips were fabricated or concocted. In these circumstances and taking this fact in particular into consideration we do never feel any difficulty to hold that the ATM transaction slips are genuine slips and these slips are not at all contradicted by the O.P Bank i.e United Bank of India. The ATM machine belongs to UBI i.e O.P-2 and O.P-2 could have produced print out record of day-to-day transaction of the ATM machine of that day before the Forum, but no such record is produced before this Forum by the O.P-2. Why? Is it for the fear that the cat will be out of the bag? Had that record been produced before the Forum, it could have been well detected as to whether the transaction of the complainant failed on that very day or not. But the O.P-2 has not given that scope to the Forum and adverse inference is, therefore, drawn against the O.P-2 to the effect that O.P-2 has not produced the said ATM record before the Forum only to suppress the vital fact that the transaction of the complainant was not successful on that very day.
That the complainant did not withdraw Rs.20,000/- on17.10.2014 also stands established by the version of O.P-2 itself. It is the version of O.P-2 itself that a customer of another bank is not allowed to withdraw more than Rs.10,000/- from UBI ATM machine on a single day. If that be so, a question arises how the complainant withdrew Rs.20,000/- on 17.10.2014 from the ATM counter of UBI on that very day. If the version of O.P-2 is assumed to be true ,then the withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- on that very day by the complainant ( who is the customer of O.P-1 bank) is not possible and this fact goes to prove that the complainant did not withdraw Rs.20,000/- on 17.10.2014. But this very fact is not admitted by the O.P-2 . They go on saying that the complainant withdrew Rs.20,000/- on 17.10.2014 from their ATM machine. Such withdrawal appears to be an impossibility, especially when a customer of outside bank is not allowed to withdraw more than Rs.10,000/- on a particular date. By the simple version of O.P-2 itself, it is proved that the complainant did not withdraw Rs.20,000/- from the ATM machine on 17.10.2014 and the O.P Banks have committed deficiency in service by debiting Rs.20,000/- from the account of the complainant and complainant is entitled to get refund of this amount from the O.Ps and both the O.P s will remain jointly and severally liable for making payment to the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost of Rs.5000/- only.
Both the O.Ps will remain jointly and severally liable for making payment to the complainant and they are directed to make payment of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant by them along with cost as referred to above within a month of this order, failing which the aforesaid amounts will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
