Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/102/2018

Mukesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

in person

31 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.    102 of 2018

                                    DATE OF INSTITUTION:                 12.07.2018

                                                DATE OF ORDER:                            31.10.2023

 

Mukesh Kumar Gupta, R/o H.No.198-B, Vijay Nagar, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

 

            ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Ghanta Ghar, Bhiwani.
2. The Assistant General Manager, Grievance Cell, State Bank of India, Sector-17B, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:      Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member

 

 

Present:-        Ms. Natasha Sangwan, Advocate for complainant.

          Sh. Sanesh Chaudhry, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of this case are that complainant is having a saving bank account bearing No.10588573807 (IFSC Code No.SBIN0001531) with the OP No.1 and enjoying ATM facility on this account. On 03.06.2018, at about 6.00 a.m., complainant wanted to withdraw Rs.27,000/- though ATM at Clock Towner, Bhiwani, process was completed but no money was delivered to complainant from the machine. After half an hour message came at mobile number for withdrawal of the money. On 04.06.2018 (03.06.2018 being Sunday), complainant contacted the OP but suggested to contact at toll free number. Complainant got registered vide ticket number 4446736890 and reply received that fraudulently someone else had got the money.  So, complainant got registered online FIR on 07.06.2018 against the culprits.  Also, letter written to OP No.1 for CC TV Footage but of no avail. Therefore, a complaint was lodged with OP No.2. Complainant has alleged that OPs rendered deficient and negligent service by not providing security guard or caretaker at the ATM machine and not resolving the dispute despite various efforts which caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss. Hence, present complaint has been preferred seeking directions against OPs to refund Rs.27,000/- alongwith simple interest @12% per annum; to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and to pay Rs.5500/- towards litigation expenses.

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and joinder of parties.  On merits, it has submitted that complainant operated the ATM machine for withdrawal of Rs.27,000/- and account statement depicts the same and fair operation of account by the account holder.  As per Ops, Rs.27,000/- were duly withdrawn by complainant and messaged qua this was sent at his mobile number. However, the allegations levelled by complainant have been denied and require strict proof thereof.  It is admitted that complainant made complaint at toll free number but no such message that someone else has got his money. It is submitted that CCTV footage is only given under settle procedure of law, and to the investigating agencies, through proper channel. As such, OPs submitted no deficiency in service on their part. In the end, prayer has been made for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit of complainant as Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on 13.08.2019.

4.                     No evidence tendered on behalf of Ops rather it was closed vide statement dated 31.08.2022.

5.                     We have heave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

6.                     At the outset, the grievance of complainant is that he used ATM for withdrawal of Rs.27,000/- but the amount was not received by him rather the amount debited from his account. On the contrary, the OPs submitted that the transaction on the alleged day was successful and this fact is clear from the bank account statement of complainant. Complainant has alleged that no CCTV footage qua withdrawal of money was provided to him. Complainant to prove his case has placed on record, copy of complaint made to police (Annexure C-1); copy of application seeking CCTV footage (Annexure C-2); copy of complaint made to OP No.2 (Annexure C-3) and copy of intimation made to police (Annexure C-4) and CD (Ex. C-5).  Complainant to prove his case has placed reliance on case law delivered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Bhadra N. Dalal Vs. Bank of India, Revision Petition No.4631 of 2010 decided on 26.09.2011, in case titled State Bank of Patiala Vs. Sumit Kumar & Anr., Revision Petition No.4526 of 2012 decided on 07.08.2013(NC) and a case decided by Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in case titled The Manager, SBI Vs. Rajbir Singh  bearing First Appeal No.15 of 2015 decided on 02.12.2016.  

7.                     From perusal of the above referred documents, case laws and going through the entire case file, we are of the view that the complainant used the ATM machine of OP but it failed to explain, how the transaction was successful. What to talk about redressing the grievance of complainant, it had not bothered to supply CCTV footage to complainant despite making application dated 26.06.2018 to the OP. Even despite making application before this Commission, in this regard, OP has not provided CCTV footage to the complainant. It was the CCTV footage which could prove that whether the amount of Rs.27000/- dispensed from the ATM and who has received the amount.  It is admitted case of the parties that the alleged amount debited from the bank account of complainant but in the absence of CCTV footage, it can be assumed that complainant has not received the amount. In such a situation, it is observed that the amount not received from the ATM machine when complainant processed for the same, however, it may dispensed later on, after leaving the ATM booth by the complainant. It can be easily assumed that once the ATM machine not released the amount, customer will not wait there for a long time rather he will make another efforts regarding his wrongly debited hard earn money. The case laws referred above are very helpful in deciding the present case. In rebuttal to the evidence so produced by complainant, OPs have not produced any evidence as such, the evidence of complainant remained unrebutted which goes in favour of complainant and against the Ops.

8.                     In view of the above, the OPs are held negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. Furthermore, the complainant must have harassed from such act & conduct of Ops.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order:-

(i)        To pay a sum of Rs.27,000/- (Rs. Twenty seven thousand) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)       To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment.

(iii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                                                                       

                        In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.          

Announced.

Dated: 31.10.2023.

 

                                    (Shashi Kiran Panwar)                    (Saroj Bala Bohra)

                                                       Member                           Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission,Bhiwani. 

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Ms. Natasha Sangwan, Advocate for complainant.

          Sh. Sanesh Chaudhry, Advocate for OPs.

 

                  Arguments heard.  Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint stands allowed.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

                  

Dated: 31.10.2023                   Member                     Presiding Member,

                                                                                    District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission,                      Bhiwani.