Haryana

StateCommission

A/657/2016

STATE BANK OF PATIALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANDEEP - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.TANEJA

01 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    657 of 2016

Date of Institution:    18.07.2016

Date of Decision :     01.03.2017

 

Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Nathusari Chopta Branch, Sirsa.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Sandeep Kumar c/o Ashoka Medical Hall, Jain Market, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                      

Argued by:          Shri Abhineet Taneja, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

                 Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent-complainant. Service was effected but none appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant.

2.                Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala (for short ‘SBP’), Sirsa-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated June 01^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs.5,000/-, Rs.15,000/- compensation and Rs.3,300/- litigation expenses.

3.                Sandeep Kumar-complainant/respondent No.1 maintained Saving Bank Account No.65024826083 with SBP-Opposite Party No.1. A card of Automated Teller Machine (for short ‘ATM’) was also issued in order to facilitate him to withdraw amount.

4.                The grievance of the complainant was that on July 13^th, 2013, he used ATM card to withdraw an amount of Rs.5,000/- from ATM of SBI-Opposite Party No.2 at 1:44 P.M., but the amount was not received by him because the transaction of ATM remained unsuccessful. However, the amount of Rs.5000/- was debited to his account. He complained to the appellant-Bank but of no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District 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 No.1 has urged that the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.5,000/- by using ATM. In support, reference was made to ATM Customer Advice (Annexure A-4) and Transaction Sheet (Annexure A-5).

7.               A perusal of ATM Customer Advice (Annexure A-4) and Transaction Sheet (Annexure A-5) shows that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant on July 13^th, 2013 by using ATM Card No.6038455043900001995, 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.  ATM Customer Advice (Annexure A-4) and Transaction Sheet (Annexure A-5) clearly show that the details of the ATM Card Number, Account Number tally with the account of the complainant and amount of Rs.5,000/- was withdrawn by him.  So, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the amount of Rs.5,000/- was not withdrawn by the complainant. In view of this, the 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-SBP.

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.11,650/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant-opposite party No.1 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 01.03.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL