Haryana

Karnal

440/2012

Jaswant Singh S/o Munshiram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajpal Mann ATM Diling Helper Staf State Bank Of Patiyala - Opp.Party(s)

Balram Singh

27 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.440 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt.13.09.2012

                                                          Date of decision:19.03.2015

 

Jaswant Singh son of Munshi Ram Gali No.5, House No.8-B,  Basant  Bihar, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

1.Raj Pal Mann, ATM  Dealing Assistant, working in State Bank of Patiala, Branch Railway Road, Karnal.

2.Sube Singh Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Railway Road, Branch, Karnal.

3.State Bank of India, Branch Model Town, Karnal.

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before        Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Balram Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                      Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the OP no.1 and 2.

                      Sh.S.K.Malhotra Advocate for the OP no.3.

ORDER

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that he was having saving account No. 65074776904 with the  State Bank of Patiala i.e. OP no.2 and on 2.06.2012 the complainant used ATM Machine of OP No.3 and tried to withdraw Rs.19,000/- from the ATM Machine but the  amount could not be withdrawn  but a slip came out from the machine in which transaction of withdrawal of Rs.19,000/- was shown.  On the same day, the  went to OP no.1 and told  him the whole story. However, his account was credited with Rs.19000/-  on 14.6.2012  and  he withdraw the amount of Rs.19000/- from his account on 15.6.2012. The complainant  has further alleged that on 13.8.2012 an amount of Rs.19000/- was debited from his account. On 31.8.2012  the complainant approached the OP No.2 and made written complaints and the  officials of OP no.2 assured the complainant to redress the grievance of the complainant but the officials of the Ops continued to postpone the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately amount was not returned which tantamounts to deficiency in services.  The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the  complaint.

 

2.                 The OP  No.1 filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complaint was not legally maintainable and  that the complaint was bad for mis joinder of the parties

 

                    On merits, it was contended  by OP No.1 and 2 that  the complainant used his ATM  on 2.06.2012 to withdraw an amount of Rs.19,000/- by using the ATM State Bank of India  , Model Town and the same was successful and Rs.19,000/- were withdrawn by the complainant through ATM as per record submitted by the State Bank of India. It was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of answering OP No.1 and 2  and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

                   The OP No.3 has also filed its separate written statement raising the preliminary objections  the complaint doesnot disclose any cause of action. The complainant is having his account in OP No.2 and he used the ATM of OP No.3 and as per J.P.Log the transaction was successful. So the amount of Rs.19000/- has been withdrawn by the complainant as has been correctly reflected in the J.P.Log and  the same has been correctly debited by OP No.2.

 

                   On merits, it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the answering OP No.3 and the debit entry of Rs.19000/- has been correctly made by the OP No.2.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                Therefore,  from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the  complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that he was having saving account No. 65074776904 with the  OP No.2 and on 2.6.2012 the complainant used ATM Machine of OP No.3 and tried to withdraw Rs.19,000/- from the ATM Machine but the  amount could not be withdrawn  but a slip came out from the machine in which transaction of withdrawal of Rs.19,000/- was shown .  The complainant approached the OP No.1 and made written complaints  and the amount of Rs.19000/- was  credited in his account on 14.6.2012 but again the amount of Rs.19000/- was debited from his account  15.6.2012. Then on 31.8.2012 he made complaint to the Ops and the  officials of OP No.2 assured the complainant to redress the grievance of the complainant but the officials of the Ops continued to postpone the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately amount was not returned which tantamounts to deficiency in services.  The complainant has also placed  his affidavits  Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 photo copy of  pass book Ex.C3 and copy of the application. Ex.C4 on the file.

 

                   However, as per the contentions of the Ops, the complainant used the ATM Machine on 02.06.2012 for withdrawal of Rs.19, 000/- and the transaction was successful. Meaning thereby the complainant had withdrawn the aforesaid amount of Rs.19,000/- as shown in the J.P.Roll.

 

                   The OP No.3 has also asserted that the transaction was successful and the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.19, 000/- on 02.6.2012 and after enquiry no extra amount was found in the ATM.  The Ops report Ex. OP6 in order to ascertain as to whether the afore stated transaction of the complainant was successful or not.

         

5.                Therefore, after going through the  evidence and circumstances of the case, it is evident that  the complainant on 2.06.2012  used the ATM Machine of State Bank of India, Model Town, Karnal for withdrawal of Rs.19,000/- but the said amount was not  allegedly received. Though, the slip showing the transaction came out.  The said transaction dated 2.06.2012 has been reflected in the statement of account Ex.OP3. The Ops have also attached another of Statement of Account Ex.OP7 wherein the said transaction of withdrawal of Rs.19000/-has been shown as successful.   Therefore, there is voluminous evidence on the file to show that the complainant used the ATM card for withdrawal of Rs.19,000/-  on 2.06.2012  from the ATM Machine of OP No.3 and the said transaction was successful.

 

6.                No doubt it has come in evidence that the OP no.2 had reversed the entry of Rs.19000/-  on 14.6.2012 by crediting the amount of Rs.19000/-  in the account of the complainant but the said entry was credited in view of the complaint dated 4.6.2012 Ex.OP1 and when the said complaint was processed  and when  e-mail  Ex.OP6 was received about the successful transaction of  Rs.19000/- by the complainant on 2.6.2012 then the said  sum of Rs.19000/- was again debited as the complainant had withdrawn  the amount of Rs.19000/- on 2.6.2012 and as such the statement of account  Ex.OP7 correctly depicts the entries  which are in consonance with the JP Roll

 

7.                The argument that   no CC footage has been placed on the file by the Ops and as such the Ops concealed the material evidence and  thus  complaint was liable to be accepted is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the order passed by the Hon,ble State Commission   in the appeal  No.227 of 2013  decided on 23.5.2013  titled  Bank of India Versus Ashok Kumar.  In the said Judgment, the Hon, ble State

Commission has held as below:

 

                                                          “Even  otherwise, the ATM card remains with the possession of the complainant alongwith its secret number and nobody can withdraw any amount without secret code number.”

 

                 Same view  has been taken by the  Hon,ble National Commission in case State Bank of India Vs.K.K.Bhalla in revision petition no. 3182 of 2008 (2011(2) RCR 292 (NC).

                 The Hon’ble State Commission, U.T.Chandigarh has also taken the same view.

                   Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down  by the Hon’ble State Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission , U.T.Chandigarh in case Shri Sarabjit Singh Lahri Versus PNB and another, 2003(1) CPC page 425

 

7.                Therefore, in view of the law laid down  in the above referred authority and in view of the fact that Pin code is a secret and the ATM is also a very personal document of the customer and without using the secret pin code and the ATM card, the transaction cannot be completed. Therefore, as per report Ex.OP5, which has reflected  the transaction successful, it has to be held that the complainant used the ATM card by inserting secret pin code and thus the transaction was completed.  It is pertinent to mention that as per version of the complainant, he received the receipt of the transaction itself shows that the transaction was successful and there is no reason as to why the money was not received by the complainant.

 

                         It is pertinent to mention here that there is nothing on the file  in order to infer that on the particular date the particular machine was not functioning properly.  There is no other complaint regarding irregular functioning of the said ATM machine. Therefore, when the document Ex.OP6 has shown the transaction successful then in the absence of any contrary evidence on the file, it could not be assumed that the said amount was not withdrawn by the complainant and as such we hold that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

8.                Therefore, as a sequel to our above findings, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 19.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Balram Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the OP no.1 and 2.

                    Sh.S.K.Malhotra Advocate for the OP no.3.

                  

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 19.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.