Haryana

Kurukshetra

132/2017

Nirmala Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Saini

14 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                               Complaint Case No.132 of 2017.

                                                               Date of institution: 04.07.2017.

                                                               Date of decision:14.12.2018.

 

Nirmala Kumari W/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar, R/o House No.1503, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                             Versus

1. State Bank of India, Mini Secretariat, Branch Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.
2. Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, SCO No.77-BE, Sector-13 Market, Kurukshetra.

….Respondents.

BEFORE       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:      Sh. Vijay Saini, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Sh. K.K.Kaushik, Advocate for the OPs.

                  

ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Nirmala Kumari against State Bank of India and another, the opposite parties.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a diabetic patient from the last 10 years and due to which she is unable to stand for a long in a queue outside the ATM Machine of the Ops and therefore, she used to get withdraw the amount from the ATM Machine through her son namely Sachin.  It is alleged that on 10.04.2017 at about 10.15 a.m. the complainant sent her son to withdraw a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the ATM Machine installed at Panchayat Bhawan, Mini Sectt., Kurukshetra and when the son of complainant gave a command regarding the withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- but an amount of Rs.11,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- came out of the said ATM Machine., whereas the amount of Rs.20,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant made several complaints to the Ops as well as customer care centre of Ops but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund a sum of Rs.9,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.  

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, it is submitted that as per record, the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- was successful and no excess money was found in the ATM machine.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                In support of his case, the counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.                We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.                Ld.counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is diabetic patient for the last 10 years.  Due to which she is enable to stand in queue outside the ATM  of Ops and ATM of the complainant was used by her son on 10.4.2017 at 10.15 a.m. The complainant had sent her son to withdraw a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the ATM, which is installed in Mini Secretariat in front of the bank of Ops.  Complainant was surprised to see when the amount of Rs.11,000/- comeout instead of 20,000/- from the ATM.  This is the transaction Number is 7839.  After this his son took mini statement vide transaction No.7840, which shown in the account receipt.  Her son and his husband went to the bank for lodging complaint about the matter to the Probation Officer of the Bank and he directed to him to lodge a complaint on toll free number.  The complainant filed complaint on toll fee number on the same day.  The ticket number of toll free number is 3049153918.  On the same day i.e. 4.10.2017 official of the complaint centre told to wait for 7 days.    After 7 days  on dated 18.4.2017 complainant again registered a complaint on toll free number.  The ticket number of this complaint is 3062832747.  The official of OP No.1 directed to complainant to contact after seven days.  After that complainant had sent many letters to the Ops which is Ex.C-1, Ex.C-4, Ex.C-6, Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-10, Ex.C-14, Ex.C-15 & Ex.C-17.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that Ops have not filed any affidavit in support of his evidence before the Forum.  Ops have placed on record only two documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2.  Regarding Ex.R-1 Ld. Counsel for complainant contended that it is a forged document because in that document there is no stump of bank, which shows that document is related to the bank.  In that document which is Ex.R-1, there is missing number of ATM transaction between 7839 transaction No.7843 which shows that manipulated document of Ops.  Ld. Counsel for complainant also contended that in written statement there is no specific answer of complaint in the written statement.  There has been mentioned wrong and denied in the written statement.  Specific reply was not in the written statement.  The next point of argued by the ld. Counsel for the complainant that Ops have not placed on record log book and cash verification report of that day which shows that what was the total amount placed by the bank official in the
ATM on 10.4.2017 and what was the remaining amount of day that at the end of the day, which clearly shows that there is a deficiency on the part of Ops to come out  of Rs.11,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- on dated 10.4.2017. No CCTV footage was placed on record.   Ld. Counsel for the Ops contended that it is clear law ATM should be used by the person in whose name it was issued.  The use of ATM card is only for card holder. Any other person cannot use the ATM card. There is no deficiency on the part of Ops because all amount withdrawn by the son of complainant on that day.  He placed on record two documents which show that husband cannot use debit card of wife.

8.                From the pleadings, evidence of case and appraisal of rival contention of both the parties, we find that Ops has no placed on record case verification report, log record or any CCTV footage which clearly shows what happened at that time on 4.10.2017.  It is admitted fact that Ops not filed affidavit in support of their evidence, which shows that something wrong in the case.   There is a missing serial number in transaction between 7839 to 7843, which clearly shows the conduct of Ops.  It seems that Ex.R-1 is manipulated document.  So, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.9,000/- and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount i.e. Rs.9,000/- from the date of institution of this complaint till realization.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:14.12.2018.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),               (Neelam)         

Member                                    Member.