Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/95/2015

Parijat Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sbi , Kamakshya Nagar, Branch - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL

 C.C.Case No. 95 of 2015

Parijat Nayak, aged about 41 years

D/o late Madhaba Nayak,

Vill/PO:L Mathakaragola, PS: Kamakahyanagar,

Dist: Dhenkanal                                                               ….........Complainant

                                                                Versus

State Bank of India, Kamakhyanagar Branch,

At/Po/PS: Kamakhyanagar,

Dist: Dhenkanal, represented through

Its Branch Manager                                                   …............Opp. Party

Present: Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,

                 Sri Khirod Kumar Pani, Member

                Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

Counsel: For the complainant:  P. C. Mishra & Associates

                  For the Opp. Party: Ganeswar Rath

Date of hearing: 2.1.2017

Date of order: 13.1.2016

                                                                                        JUDGMENT

Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President

                In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Party.

                1) Very briefly, the case of the complainant stated are that;            she is having one S.B.Account bearing No. 31530035166 and also having the facility of ATM withdrawal.  On 5.7.2015 at about 1.10 P.M the complainant tried to withdraw some amount and went to the ATM counter adjacent to the O.P. Bank and attempted to withdraw the required amount.  She inserted her card in the ATM-II machine and there was no response from the said machine for which she cancelled the transaction. Again she tried to withdraw many from ATM-1 and she failed in her attempt to withdraw the amount and left the ATM counter by 1.15 P.M. It is further stated that she was in urgent need of money for which she went to the nearby ATM counter near Natraj Film Hall ATM counter and withdrew Rs. 5,000/- from that counter.  After withdrawal, she received two messages of withdrawal of money for Rs. 5,000/- and the second one for Rs. 20,000/-.   As it was Sunday, she could not contact the O.P and on the next day she lodged a complaint regarding deduction of Rs. 20,000/- which she has never withdrawn with a request to revert the amount to her account.  There was no response from the side of the O.P. Bank for which the complainant served a legal notice on 8.9.2015.  On receipt of the legal notice the Opp. Party on 22.9.2015 replied that the transaction is a genuine and successful one and the ATM machines are new and are in proper working order and the ATM counter is properly guarded by the security guards round the clock and they have provided the CCTV footage of the ATM counter to facilitate investigation on the FIR.  It is further stated that there was no security guard in the ATM counter by the time she made the transaction through ATM.  The Opp. Party in his reply has stated that the money has been withdrawn at 1.21 PM on 7.5.2015 and by that time the complainant had left the ATM counter and was proceeding towards the next counter near Natraj Cinema Hall from which it is evident that the complainant has not withdrawn the money.  Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Party and prays for a direction to the Opp. Party to credit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the S.B.Account of the complainant and to pay compensation and cost of the litigation 35,000/-.  The contents of the petition are supported by affidavit.

2)           The Opp. Party appeared and filed written version.  It is in the version of the Opp. Party that the all the allegations of the complainant are false and vexatious. The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands thus the case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  The complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Party.  The case is also not maintainable as allegations made by the complainant are not coming within the purview of the C.P. Act.  It is stated that as per the enquiry report it is revealed that the complainant successfully operated the ATM (ON SITE-II) on 7.5.2015 by inserting her ATM card and also put her secret PIN in the ATM and as per the command given by the complainant to the ATM machine which was properly functioning and ATM machine successfully disposed Rs. 20,000/- as per the command put to the ATM by the complainant at 1.21 P.M on 7.5.2015.  Therefore, it is wrong and false to say that the complainant failed in her attempt to withdraw money from the ATM and left the ATM counter by 1.15 P.M. It is further stated that the ATM record shows that the ATM-II machine was properly functioning/operating on that day on relevant date and time.   The complainant has not given the time in her complaint petition as to when she went to the nearby ATM and withdraw Rs. 5,000/- and as such the O.P is not able to make necessary enquiry about such second withdrawal of money.  Since the complainant has successfully operated the ATM-II machine near the O.P. Bank by inserting the ATM card and by putting her secret code   had given command for withdrawal of her required money and the ATM machine had correctly dispensed the money on operation of the machine, it is quite natural that the message of such transaction must have reached to the mobile number of the complainant. It is false to say that the complainant has not withdrawn Rs. 20,000/-.  On receipt of complaint dated 5.10.2015 of the complainant the O.P took immediate action   on 6.10.2015 and after enquiry it was found that the ATM transactions made by the complainant were successful and there was no fault in the ATM machine and accordingly the O.P had intimated the petitioner. It is further stated that the O.P  Bank has provided security guard in the ATM counter and there was/is CCTV camera fitted in the ATM counter.  On receiving the complaint of the complainant regarding the ATM dispute and taking into consideration of the complaint of the complainant who is a lady the Bank authorities had decided to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- the claim amount of the complainant and accordingly the disputed money Rs. 20,000/- has been paid in the account of the complainant as per her claim and the matter was solved.  On receipt of the disputed amount, the complainant has assured the O.P Bank for withdrawal of the dispute.  Since the dispute has already been settled and the disputed money has already been paid to the complainant there is no deficiency in service and the case is liable to be dismissed

3)            On the aforesaid pleadings of the respective parties as discussed in details before going into the merit of the case, it is now beyond any doubt that the Opp. Party Bank has already paid the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as admitted in his written version at para-12.  The complainant also does not dispute to such averment for which we are of the view that the complainant has already received the amount in question during the pendency of the dispute.   Therefore, the main and pivotal grievance of the complainant has already been redressed.    As the dispute has already been mitigated between the parties, there is no need to enter into the merits of the case.  But fact remains that the Opp. Party Bank has paid the amount after filing of the case by the complainant before this Forum and the complainant might have incurred some expenses and undergone mental tension.   Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be best safeguarded if the Opp. Party pays the cost of the legal expenses of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.  Hence ordered.

                                                                                         ORDER

                The consumer complaint is disposed of with the above observations with a direction to the Opp. Party to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

 

(Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy) (Khirod Kumar Pani)  (Badal Bihari Pattanaik)

                      Member                         Member                    President