Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/205

Raju Kumar Singh S/O Mahesh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

11 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                    Date of institution: 17.04.2013

Complaint Case. No.205/13                                                      Date of order: 11.04.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Raju Kumar Singh S/O Mahesh Singh, RZ-13/11 Gali no. 3 Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                                                                                                     Complainant

VERSUS

State Bank of India (Branch code no. 06281), J.J. Colony Jawala puri, New Delhi                                                                                                                                                   Opposite party no. 1

State Bank of Mysore, Paschim Enclave, Peera Garhi New Delhi                                                                                                                                                                                Opposite party no. 2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT 

                        The present complaint U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act is filed by Shri Raju Kumar Singh named above herein the complainant with averments that he has saving bank account number 10668675062 with STATE BANK OF INDIA Branch Jawala Puri, New Delhi herein after referred as the opposite party no. 1. On 16.12.2012 he visited ATM of STATE BANK OF MYSORE Paschim enclave Peeragarhi, New Delhi herein after referred as the opposite party no. 2. He made option for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- from the ATM. But to his surprise he did not get money from the ATM. But after a few seconds he received SMS from the opposite party no. 1 of withdrawal  of Rs. 20,000/-.The complainant immediately contacted at Customer Care Number 1800-11-2211 of the opposite party no. 1. He assured that the amount will be returned to the account of the complainant within 24 hours and if the amount is not shown returned in his account within 24 hours he can contact next day i.e. on 17.12.2012. The complainant on 17.12.2012 again contacted at Customer Care Number 1800-11-2211 of the opposite party no. 1. They registered his complaint and assured that necessary steps for recovery will be taken. The complainant after a week again contacted at the Customer Care Number 1800-11-2211. They told the complainant that it will take three weeks to reverse the money. But after three weeks the Branch Manager told the complainant that his complaint was under process. Therefore, the complainant sent three emails to the opposite parties separately. The complainant did not receive any response, therefore, he reported the matter to the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi. On 12.04.2013 he received a letter with CCTV footage from the Reserve Bank of India. He is not satisfied with the response and CCTV footage received from the Reserve Bank of India. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund his Rs.20,000/- and pay Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as legal expenses.

                        Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party no. 1 filed reply while raising preliminary objections that cause of action arose at the ATM of the opposite party no. 2 and the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party no. 1, that as per the statement of account of the complainant and JP Log given by the opposite party no. 2 the complainant effected withdrawal transaction of Rs. 20,000/- on 16.12.2012 at the ATM of the opposite party no. 2 and as the Debit Card usage system is most stringent of security and safety criteria and unless the Debit Card is given physically to somebody and the unique PIN number is disclosed by the complainant it is impossible for the third party to use the Debit Card and withdraw cash. The complainant or his nominee has certainly withdrawn the amount and without handing over the Debit Card and disclosing the secret PIN number none can withdraw money from ATM.

However on merits the opposite party no. 1 asserted that transaction for withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/- is successful from ATM of the opposite party no.2 and in response they have given code “0000” in the JP Log statement. The withdrawal is also reflected in the statement of account of the complainant. However filing of complaint before banking ombudsmen Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi is admitted and asserted that he rightly dismissed the complaint. All other allegations of the complaint are also denied.

The opposite party no. 2 also filed reply of the complaint while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections of maintainability of the complaint, the complaint is false, frivolous and baseless, the JP Log book shows that as per transaction no. 9220 of the ATM of opposite party no. 2 the complainant on 16.12.2012 withdrew a sum of Rs. 20,000/-through their ATM from his account no. 10668675062 with opposite party no.1 , the branch of the opposite party no. 2 is situated on 1^st floor of the same building where the ATM is installed but the complainant did not report the Branch Manager immediately and thereafter, there is no allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against opposite party no. 2, the complaint is false and frivolous and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                        However on merits the opposite party no.2 denied all other allegations of the complaint and asserted that the complainant on 16.12.2012 vide transaction no. 9220 withdrew a sum of Rs. 20,000/- through debit card no. 6220180628100088785 from his saving account no. 10668675062 from the ATM of the opposite party no. 2. The transaction is reflected in the JP Log and statement of account of the complainant. The withdrawal is also supported from the CCTV footage. The opposite party no. 2 again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                        The complainant filed rejoinders to the replies of the opposite parties controverting the stand taken by the opposite parties and again reiterated his stand taken in the complaint.

When Raju Kumar Singh complainant was asked to lead evidence, he tendered his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. He also relied upon letter dated 23.01.2013 from banking ombudsmen.  

                        When the opposite party no. 1 was asked to lead evidence, the opposite party no.1 filed affidavit of Shri Neeraj Kumar Branch Manager narrating facts of their reply. The opposite party no.1 also relied upon statement of account of the complainant.  

When the opposite party no.2 was asked to lead evidence, the opposite party no.2 relied upon affidavit of Shri Panachanan Disari Branch Manager narrating facts  of their reply. The opposite party no.2 also relied upon JP log dated 16.12.2012, certificate dated 01.01.2013, statement of account of the complainant, photocopy of withdrawal slip of Rs. 20,000/- from account of the complainant and Gazette notifications of Govt. of India dated 27.11.1993.

                        From the perusal of the complaint, replies, affidavits and documents relied upon by both the sides it reveals that the complainant had saving account no. 10668675062 with the opposite party no. 1. On 16.12.2012 he withdrew a sum of Rs. 20,000 from his saving account through his  ATM Card No. 6220180628100088785 Vide transaction no. 9220 as shown in the JP log and statement of account of the complainant and the transaction was completed.   

                        Learned counsel for opposite parties argued that withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/- from account no.10668675062 of the complainant through ATM of the opposite party no.2 is indicated in the JP Log book and statement of account of the complainant. The Debit Card usage system is most stringent of safety and security criteria and unless the Debit Card is given to somebody and the unique PIN number is disclosed by the complainant, it is impossible for the third party to use the Debit Card and withdraw cash. There is nothing on behalf of the complainant that he did not give the Debit Card or disclosed the PIN number to somebody else. There is also nothing to prove that there is any unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties are not liable to refund the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and pay for compensation. In support of his arguments he relied upon case law reported as 2008(III) CPJ page 21 Rajeshwar Singh V/S State Bank (UT Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Chandigarh) wherein it is held that there is no dispute about it that applellant (complainant) was holding a account no. 01190020611 in State Bank of Patiala, Mohali branch and on 01.01.2005 he had opening balance of Rs.95.403/-. Now the question to be seen is whether he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.25,000/- on 20/21.01.2005 as alleged by the respondents or had not withdrawn any amount on that date as system of ATM installed at the premises or respondents no.2 to 5 was unable to process. It is further his case that he had only withdrawn Rs.15,000/- on 21.01.2005. A perusal of report dated 13.05.2005 of respondent NO. 5 shows that the appellant had made a complaint regarding use of ATM Card no.6038455050200023710 and it was found that no excess amount in the concerned ATM had been found on that date. The copy of the J.P. Rolls (Annexure R-1) further shows that an amount as per TXN No. 330 for Rs.10,000/- of account number 01190020611 at 11.58 had been withdrawn and further an amount of Rs.15,000/- had been withdrawn from the account vide TXN no. 332. Thus, record of the bank positively indicated that an amount of Rs.25,000/- had been withdrawn either by the appellant or by someone else by misusing card of the appellant to whom he may have handed over The appellant has not led any evidence that he had not withdrawn the amount of Rs.25,000/- or ATM system was not in operation on 20/21.01.2005.

                        Similar view is taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in case law reported as 2011(II) CPJ 106 NC  State bank of india V/S K.K. Bhalla.

                        Similar are the facts of the present complaint. The Debit Card was in possession of the complainant and without disclosing the unique PIN number the Debit Card cannot be used. There is no evidence on behalf of the complainant that he did not give the Debit Card and did not disclose secret PIN number to third person. There is sufficient material on record that the amount is withdrawn and transaction is completed. The complainant also failed to lead evidence showing that he reported the matter to the opposite parties. He has also failed to prove that there is any unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

                        Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint. Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on : 11.04.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                                    (R.S.  BAGRI)                       MEMBER                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT