DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.245/2018
Mr. Krishna Kant Shukla
B-18, Gama-I, Greater Noida,
U.P- 201308
….Complainant
Versus
- Chief Manager
Punjab National Bank
BO-: Gama-I, Shopping Complex, Jagat Farm,
Greater Nodia, 201308
- Chief General Manager
State Bank of India
New Delhi Circle, 10th Floor
11, Parliament Street
New Delhi-110001
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 23.08.2018
Date of Order : 18.01.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
1. Complainant has requested to pass an award directing (i) to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @24% p.a from 20.09.2017; (ii) to pay the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards harassment, mental agony etc;(iii) to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- as litigation charges etc.
2. Brief facts the case are as under:-
The Complainant was trying to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from ATM installed at the Ground Floor of M.C. Setalvad Block, New Lawyers’ Chambers, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi. When the transaction was in process, there was electricity cut. ATM stopped working without dispensing the requisite amount of cash. After the gap of 10-5 minutes in the cabin, electricity resumed, hopeful of the fact that the machine (ATM) would dispense the entered amount. But it did not dispense the amount. He contended that during this process, Retd. Justice Z.U Khan, Adv. Hon’ble Supreme Court was also present. It is also stated that a message was received on the mobile number from the bank informing the Complainant about the transaction of Rs.10,000/- from his saving account. A caution was exercised. The next person in queue was requested not to withdraw Rs.10,000/-. He withdrew only Rs.1,000/- in front of them. The Complainant visited his home branch of Punjab National Bank. He further reported this matter to OP-1 & OP-2 at around 4:00 PM (20.09.2017). He was assured by OP-1 & OP-2 that matter would be investigated on priority basis. As a result of which, the complaint was registered vide Sr. No. M106578025. After waiting for response from the OPs, he sent notice to OP-1 & OP-2 on 09.02.2018.
3. Per contra, OP-1 filed its written reply interalia raising preliminary objections. The Complainant concealed this fact that Complainant had filed complaint before DCDRC-VI, ITO. OP-1 has contended that it has no role to play in the said transaction. Once the ATM of any other Bank (SBI here), they immediately reconcile the said amount from the bank whose ATM card was used. The process happens automatically through servers without any manual intervention. It is also submitted that the ATM of SBI was used by the Complainant, hence, there is no role of OP-1 in this process. OP-1 wrote many emails to SBI. The SBI had maintained that the transaction of the Complainant was genuine. Hence, the claim of the Complainant is incorrect. The OP-1 had sought for CCTV footage, ATM Switch Centre Report of the day, detailed Audit Report, JP Log Transaction, Cash Verification of 20.09.2018, Interbank Reconciliation Report of said day. However, same was not provided. The SBI Bank has sent Electronic Journal. OP-1 is not in position to confirm or deny the non-dispensing of cash from ATM of SBI . It may be apt to mention here that the Complainant vide its complaint made four OPs but later on filed the Amended Memo of Parties vide its application dated 27.09.2018. It is not emerging from the order sheet whether said application is taken on record or not. however, there are primarily two parties (i) Punjab National Bank whose ATM Card was used & Complainant is having saving bank account in said bank (ii) SBI whose ATM was used for withdrawal of amount. OP-2 i.e SBI has not submitted its reply.
4. The Complainant & OP-1 filed written submissions and evidence in affidavit. Arguments were heard and concluded.
5. This Commission has gone into the entire material placed on record and due consideration was given to the oral arguments. The contention of the Complainant is that the transaction for Rs.10,000/- on 20.08.2018 was made from the ATM of SBI installed at the premises of Lawyers Chambers. But the said amount could not be dispensed with due to cut in electricity supply and said amount remained in-process in the ATM. However, the next drawee in queue withdrew Rs.1,000/- which was successfully dispensed. Hence, his transaction of Rs.10,000/- remained unsuccessful due to sudden cut of electricity supply, whereas the OP-1 where he maintained saving bank account sent message of dispensing/withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from his account. As such, the Complainant reported the matter to OP-1 on same day. The OP-1 took the matter with for calling the certain records & CCTV footage etc. The SBI did not provide the necessary detail except attachment of electronic journal . The same is attached herewith. It shows the cash withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. On this basis, the SBI maintained that the transaction was successful. However, the SBI has not submitted its reply and other documents. SBI did not appear before this Commission. As has been maintained by the OP-1 that the process of withdrawal from ATM happens automatically through servers without any manual intervention. In such situation, OP-1 cannot be held responsible as the process at ATM of SBI happened and so the amount of Rs.10,000/- was reconciled against the account of OP-1 (PNB). From the above discussion, it appears that whatever happened, has happened at ATM end i.e SBI. The responsibility should be borne by SBI whose ATM was used.
6. In view of above discussion and material placed on record, the Commission is of the considered view that the OP-1 i.e PNB is not short of obligation in this case. It is the SBI whose ATM was used for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- should be liable for the deficiency in service and negligence. Moreover, the SBI did not bother to appear and submit its explanation. Therefore, SBI is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- with interest of @4% p.a from the date of transaction i.e 20.09.2018 till its realization within 03 month from the receipt of this order, failing which Rs.5000/- additionally shall be imposed. OP-1 is discharged from its liability on the basis of documents/ automatic process as mentioned above.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
