Haryana

StateCommission

A/311/2015

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PYARE LAL - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.BADHRAN

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      311 of 2015

Date of Institution:      01.04.2015

Date of Decision :       25.08.2015

 

State Bank of India, Circular Road, Rewari, Main Branch (Chief Manager) SBI, Rewari.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Pyare Lal s/o Sh. Sultan Singh, Resident of Yadav Nagar, Gali No.4, Kankar Wali Gudhpur Road, Rewari.

 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                              Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri R.S. Badhran, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Sudhir-son of respondent-complainant in person.

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

State Bank of India (for short ‘SBI’), Rewari-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated February 6^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Rewari, whereby the SBI was directed to pay Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of Automated Teller Machine (for short ‘ATM’) withdrawal; Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,500/- litigation expenses. The awarded amount was to be paid within one month failing which it would fetch interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till its actual realization.

2.      Pyare Lal-complainant-respondent maintained Saving Bank Account No.10575628210 with SBI, Rewari. A card of ATM was also given in order to facilitate him to withdraw amount.

3.     The grievance of the complainant was that on November 7^th, 2012, he used ATM card to withdraw an amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM of SBI, Rewari at 7.50 P.M., however, the amount was not received by him because the transaction of ATM remained unsuccessful.  On the next day, that is, November 8^th, 2012, he came to know that the amount of Rs.40,000/- had been debited from his account. He complained to the SBI but to no avail.

4.     The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Forum.

5.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted the complaint as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.   Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party has argued that the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.40,000/- by using ATM. In support, reference was made to Transaction Sheet (Exhibit C-3) and ATM LOG (Exhibit P-2).

7.     A perusal of Transaction Sheet (Exhibit C-3) shows that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant by using ATM on November 7^th, 2012.  Similarly, in ATM LOG Exhibit P-2 withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- has clearly been shown on November 7^th, 2012, at 19:59 by using ATM Card No.6220180070500075703, that is, the ATM card of the complainant.   

8.     The ATMs are installed by various banks throughout the country. These ATMs are supported by the highest technology and excellent surveillance.  All the transactions of ATMs meet all the stringent safety and security criteria.  There is Journal Printer in the machine, which records each and every transaction done through the ATM.  The Transaction Sheet (Exhibit C-3) and ATM LOG (Exhibit P-2) clearly show that the details of the ATM Card Number, Account Number tally with the account of the complainant and amount of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn by him.  So, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the amount of Rs.40,000/- was not withdrawn by the complainant. In view of this, District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint without appreciating the aforesaid evidence. Thus, this Commission does not find it a fit case to attribute any deficiency on the part of the appellant-Opposite party-Bank.

9.     In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

10.   The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant-opposite party against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 25.08.2015

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL