Complainant in person
Advocate Satyan Jagtap for
the Opponent No.1.
Advocate Santosh Patil for
the Opponent No.2
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 17th April 2013
This complaint is filed by consumer u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against State Bank of India and Axis Bank for deficiency in service. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant has opened Zero Balance Salary Account with the Opponent No.2 – Axis Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune. He had obtained cheque book as well as ATM Card. When he visited his native place Wardha on 15/6/2009 he went to the ATM of S.B.I. Wardha Main Branch who is the Opponent No.1 in the present proceeding for withdrawing Rs.400/-. There were two ATM machines in the said cabin. When he inserted ATM Card and entered pin number message “You can withdraw Rs.10000/- or more amount & press YES or NO” appeared on the screen. He did not want to withdraw that much amount hence pressed NO option and cancelled the transaction. Then he went to the adjacent ATM and withdrew Rs.400/-. At that time he came to know that amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from his account. Then he made inquiries and also lodged complaint to the Axis Bank, Wardha Branch. He had also lodged complaint with Axis Bank, Kalyani Nagar, Pune on 20/6/2009 and also asked information from State Bank of India, Wardha. But he was informed that the electronic journal has shown that he had withdrawn amount of Rs.10,000/- hence he is not entitled for the said amount. Hence he has filed present complaint against both the Banks for deficiency in service. He has claimed Rs.10,000/- the amount which was wrongly debited from his account, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental and physical agony and Rs.100/- per day from 13th day from the date of debit of amount from his account vide transaction dated 15/6/2009 till realization and amount of Rs.7000/- by way of costs of proceeding.
[2] Both Opponents appeared in the Forum and resisted the complaint by filing separate written version. Both of them have denied the contents of the complaint in toto. According to them this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the entire transaction took place within the jurisdiction of Wardha. It is further contended that on verification it was disclosed that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the complainant as per the transaction. Both opponents have contended that the compensation which was asked by the complainant is exorbitant. They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, affidavits filed by both parties and hearing the argument of both parties following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether the complainant has proved that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service ? | In the affirmative as regards Opponent No.2. |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed |
REASONS-
As to the Points Nos. 1 and 2-
The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant is holding ATM Card of the Opponent No.2 and he had visited ATM Centre of the Opponent No.1 on 15/6/2009 at Wardha. It is the case of the complainant that when he inserted the ATM Card in the ATM machine the message appeared on the screen that he can withdraw Rs.10,000/- or more. Hence he cancelled the said transaction and subsequently withdrew amount of Rs.400/- from another ATM machine. When he had received slip from the another ATM machine he came to know that amount of Rs.10,000/- was wrongly debited from his account and also informed this fact immediately to Axis Bank, Kalyaninagar, Pune. After receiving the information SBI – Opponent No.1 informed the complainant that the transaction is successful and he had received Rs.10,000/-. It is significant to note that the opponents have failed to bring on record the entries in electronic journal have authenticity or presumptive value. It is a common experience that when the account holder is not receiving amount from ATM machine the concerned bank direct him to wait till reconciliation of the account. In this circumstances a legitimate inference can be drawn that the machines are not functioning correctly and promptly for all the time. It appears from the record that the complainant has lodged complaint immediately and promptly and there is substance in the complaint lodged by the complainant.
Both Opponents have raised issue of jurisdiction. According to them the entire transaction took place within the jurisdiction of Wardha and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. But as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaint can be lodged and entertained within the jurisdiction of the Forum where the branch office of the Opponent is functioning. Eventhough the transaction took place in the ATM machine of SBI at Wardha the complainant has opened account in the Axis Bank, Kalyaninagar, Pune and S.B.I. has branch office at Pune. Hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain, conduct and decide the present complaint. It reveals from the voluminous documents which are produced on behalf of the complainant that he had made sincere efforts for the recovery of money which is wrongly debited from his account. It further reveals from the averments in the complaint that he had received Rs.400/- from the same ATM machine vide next transaction. This also indicates that there is truth in the complaint. Hence I held that the evidence which is produced by the complainant is substantial to draw an inference that he has not received amount of Rs.10,000/- as alleged by him.
He has claimed compensation @ Rs.100/- per day from the date of disputed transaction till its realization as per the R.B.I. Rules. But after considering the fact that money with the Bank is public money. If such harsh view is taken then ultimately it would affect public exchequer. Hence I held that the complainant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.5000/- alongwith amount of Rs.10,000/- which was wrongly debited by the Opponent No.2. As the amount is debited by the Opponent No.2 and there is no hand of the Opponent No.1 in deficiency in service I held that the complainant is entitled for compensation from the Opponent No.2. He is further entitled to get Rs.2000/- for mental and physical sufferings and Rs.1000/- by way of costs of proceeding. I answer points accordingly and pass the following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed against the Opponent No.2
only.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponent No.2 has caused
deficiency in service.
3. The Opponent No.2 is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the
complainant as compensation including the amount which was wrongly debited from the account of the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. The Opponent No.2 is directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the
Complainant towards compensation for mental and physical sufferings and Rs.1000/- towards costs of proceeding within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
5. No order as against the Opponent No.1.
Place-Pune
Date- 17/04/2013
