DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NARNAUL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.217 of 2011
DATE OF INSTITUTION:- 18.08.2011
DATE OF ORDER:- 16.01.2015
Rajender Kumar son of Shri Ram Singh, Caste Ahir, Resident of village Bhalkhi, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana)
……………COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
State Bank of India through Manager Branch Office Rewari Road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh
………….. OPPOSITE PARTY
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Usha Yadav, Member
L.K. Nandwani, Member
Present:- Shri K. S. Rao, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri R. K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite party
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
According to the complaint, brief facts are that the complainant is having a bank account No.30835544733 with the opposite party and the opposite party has issued an ATM Card No.6220181220200004581 in favour of the complainant for making transactions from his above said account. The complainant has alleged that an amount of Rs.2,52,070/- was as balance in his account. The complainant was in dire need of money, so he withdrawn an amount of Rs.15000/- on 19.06.2011 at 14:57 from the ATM machine of the opposite party by operating his ATM Card and said transaction was found successful and at that time a balance of Rs.2,37,070/- was available in his account. The complainant again on 19.06.2011 at 14:58 operated the ATM machine of the opposite party to withdraw Rs.25,000/- from his aforesaid account, but the said transaction was not found successful because the ATM machine became dead stop. Thereafter, the complainant operated the ATM machine of Union Bank of India and checked his balance, whereupon his balance was found correct. On 21.06.2011 the complainant visited to the opposite party and enquired about the failed transaction of Rs.25,000/-, whereupon the concerned clerk of the opposite party told the balance amount of Rs.212070/- in his account. The complainant requested the opposite party several times orally as well as in writing to deposit the wrongly deducted amount of Rs.25,000/- in his account, but to no effect. The complainant also demanded the CD of Camera installed on the ATM machine from the opposite party, but the same was not provided to him despite his best efforts. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs.25,000/-, wrongly deducted from his account due to fault in ATM machine, besides claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
2. The opposite party filed reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the complainant has again operated his ATM Card and the withdrawal was successful at 3.16 P.M. The opposite party has averred that on receipt of complaint from the complainant, electronic journal was viewed and inquired about the transaction, which was found successful. The transaction was not failed, as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has withdrawn Rs.25,000/- from his account. The complainant has cooked up a false story and levelled false allegations against the bank officials. Rests of the allegations as alleged in the complaint are denied. In the end, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his own supporting affidavit Ex. CW-1, copy of ATM Customer Advice dated 19.06.2011 at 14.57 Ex.C-1, copy of ATM Customer Advice issued by Union Bank of India Ex. C-2, copy of Form dated 08.07.2011 Ex. C-3, copy of bank document Ex.C-4 and copy of pass book Ex.C-5.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite party has placed on record supporting affidavit of its Branch Manager Mr. Lehari Singh Annexure R-1, supporting affidavit of its Branch Manager Mr. Jai Narain Annexure R-2, copy of Form dated 08.07.2011 Annexure R-3, copy of ATM Customer Advice issued by Union Bank Annexure R-4 and copy of Electronic Journal Viewer Annexure R-5.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the transaction of Rs.25,000/- made by the complainant through the ATM of the opposite party on 19.06.2011, failed and the complainant did not receive the said amount. In support of his contention, he referred the ATM slip Annexure C-1 of State Bank of India regarding TXN No.3078 on 19.06.2011, by which a sum of Rs.15,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant and the ATM slip Annexure C-2 of Union Bank of India dated 19.06.2011 generated at 15:13 showing the balance of Rs.2,37,070/- in the saving bank account of the complainant. He also referred the complaint dated 08.07.2011 Annexure C-3 made by the complainant to the opposite party. He relied on the decision in the case of State Bank of India Versus Hariom Tiwari and another IV (2010) CPJ 275.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that after the receipt of the complaint dated 08.07.2011 Annexure C-3 an inquiry was made into the allegations of the complainant and it was found that the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- was successful, which was made by the complainant on 19.06.2011 from the ATM of the opposite party, according to the Electronic Journal Annexure R-5.
8. In order to find out the exact position regarding the allegation of the complainant that the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- made by him on 19.06.2011 on the ATM of the opposite party failed, we directed the opposite party to produce the record of transaction from transaction Nos. 3076 to 3082, copy of journal of account of the complainant, CC TV footage and affidavit of the branch manager. Learned counsel for the opposite party produced the statement of account of the complainant, sheet of transaction Nos. 3076 to 3090 and details of transactions for the period from 2.30 A.M. to 10.36 P.M. for 19.06.2011 related to the ATM in question of the opposite party and affidavit of Mr. Som Nath Hans Branch Manager.
9. We have examined the entire material on record carefully and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The transaction sheet showing the balance against each entry shows withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- at 15:16:44 vide transaction No.3080 on 19.06.2011 in account No.30835544733 of the complainant. Prior to withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- there is a balance of Rs.2854300/- and after the withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- it is showing balance of Rs.2829300/-. The detailed transaction list of the concerned ATM also contains transaction No.3080 regarding withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- vide card No.6220181220200004581 from account No.30835544733 of the complainant. The contention of the complainant that he did not receive Rs.25,000/- from the ATM of the opposite party seems to be untenable in view of above said documents containing the relevant entries. Learned counsel for the complainant stressed on the ATM slip of Union Bank of India Annexure C-2, which has been generated at 15:13 and the transaction in question of Rs.25,000/- for withdrawal has been made on 13:16:44 from the ATM of State Bank of India. The contention of learned counsel for the complainant do not find any support from the documents produced on the record. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost.
Announced:-
16.01.2015
(Smt. Usha Yadav) (L. K. Nandwani) (Rajesh Jindal)
Member Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Narnaul
