Haryana

Kurukshetra

181/2018

Kapoor Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBOP - Opp.Party(s)

Shishan Dutt

17 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.181 of 2018.

Date of Instt.:30.08.2018.

Date of Decision: 17.02.2020

 

Kapoor Singh S/o Shri Shiv Ram, R/o H.No.142, Sector-3, Kurukshetra-136118 Haryana

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1. State Bank of Patiala now State Bank of India Pipli Road Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.
2. Central Bank of India, Near Birla Mandir through its Branch Manager.

 

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

Present:     Shri Shishan Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. 

Shri K.K. Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

Shri B.K. Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.

 

ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Kapoor Singh against State Bank of Patiala and other, the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has hired the ATM service of the OP No.1 for consideration of SBI Account No.55088516071. That on 03.07.2017, he needed Rs.5,000/- and for that very purpose, he used the ATM issued by opposite party No.1 in ATM machine of opposite party No.2 and withdraw Rs.5000/-. Thereafter, he came to know about the mistake of opposite party that opposite parties had debited the amount twice in account of the complainant instead of one transaction of Rs.5000/-. He got recorded his grievances with OPs for refund of excess amount of Rs.5000/- various times, but all in vain.  That he requested to opposite party for providing the CCTV footage but opposite party failed to provide the same. In this way, the OPs are deficient in providing the services to him. Hence, this0 complaint.

 

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; estoppel by act and conduct; jurisdiction. It is stated that the complainant is saving bank customer of OP No.1 having account No.55088516071. When the complainant approached the OP No.1, accordingly system raised dispute and the claim was submitted to Central Bank of India for reversal, which was rejected by CBI on the ground that the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.10,000/- i.e. Rs.5000/- each. Both the transactions were successful and no amount was found excess in the ATM machine. As the transactions were reported to be successful by CBI, the amount claimed by the complainant cannot be reversed/paid. Hence, a prayer for dismissal the complaint against the OP No.1 has been made.

                Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared and filed the written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and estoppel by act and conduct. It is stated that complainant never approached the answering respondent for the CCTV footage as alleged. The CCTV footage of the alleged 03.07.2017 is not available with the answering OP, as there are backup/storage of the CCTV footage for the last about 15 days. The answering respondent is not liable to refund the alleged amount. Hence, a prayer for dismissal the complaint against the OP No.2 has been made.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 and R-2. However, the OP No.2 has failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, as such, evidence of the OP No.2 has been closed by the order of this Forum vide order dated 03.12.2019.

 

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant has hired the ATM service of the OP No.1 for consideration of SBI Account No.55088516071. He further argued that on 03.07.2017, the complainant needed Rs.5,000/- and for that very purpose, he used the said ATM in ATM machine of opposite party No.2 and withdraw Rs.5000/-. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that opposite parties had debited the amount twice in account of the complainant instead of one transaction of Rs.5000/-. The complainant got recorded his grievances with OPs for refund of excess amount of Rs.5000/- various times, but all in vain. He further argued that the complainant requested to opposite party for providing the CCTV footage but opposite party fails to provide the same. The learned consel for the complainant has also argued that no message regarding deduction of  alleged amount was received by the complainant and he only came to know when he got his pass book updated from the bank. So, both the banks are deficient in services. Learned counsel for the complainant placed on record two citations’) State Bank of India Vs. P.V.George (2019) AIR (Kerla)140  and ii) Dr. Subhash Chander Vs. State Bank of India, First Appeal No.735 of 2013 decided on 07.03.2014.

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has reiterated all the averments mentioned in his respective reply. He argued that the complainant is saving bank customer of OP No.1 and when he approached the OP No.1, accordingly raised the dispute and the claim was submitted to Central Bank of India for reversal, which was rejected by CBI on the ground that the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.10,000/- i.e. Rs.5000/- each. Both the transactions were successful and no amount was found excess in the ATM machine. He further argued that as the transactions were reported to be successful by CBI, the amount claimed by the complainant cannot be reversed/paid.

                The learned counsel for the OP No.2 has the complainant never approached the answering respondent for the CCTV footage as alleged. The CCTV footage of the alleged 03.07.2017 is not available with the answering OP, as there are backup/storage of the CCTV footage for the last about 15 days, so, the OP No.2 is not liable to refund the alleged amount.

 

8.             Undisputedly, the complainant is having account No.55088516071 alongwith ATM facility with the OP No.1. The plea of the complainant is that on 03.07.2017, he withdrew Rs.5,000/- by using the ATM issued by the OP No.1 in the ATM machine of OP No.2, but the OPs had debited the amount of Rs.5,000/- twice in his account instead of one transaction of Rs.5000/-. The OPs have not provided the CCTV footage to the complainant to prove that amount  of Rs.5000/- was actually disbursed to the complainant twice. It is not the case of the OPs that the mobile phone of the complainant was not connected with the account of the complainant and the OPs have also failed to explain as to why message was not sent on the mobile phone of the complainant regarding withdrawal of the said transactions. Therefore, stand of OP no.2  that on receipt of the complaint Ex.C-5 received from OP No.1, the  alleged transactions were found to be successful does not appear to be true and both the OP are proved to be deficient in their services.

                        State Bank of India Vs. P.V.George (2019) AIR (Kerla)140  wherein it  has been observed by the Hon’ble Kerla High court that “the relationship between a bank and its customers arises out of the contracts entered into between them. Such contracts  exist of general terms applicable to all transactions and also special terms applicable to the special services, if any, provided by the bank to its customers. The relationship between a bank and its customer, in  such if so far as it relates to the money deposited in the bank account of a customer, is that of debtor and creditor. The contractual relationship exits between  a bank and its customers are found on custom and usages. Many of these customs and usages have been recognized by courts and it is now an  accepted principle that to the extent that they have been so recognized, they are implied terms of the contracts between bank and their  customers. Duties of care is an accepted implied term in the contractual relationship that exists between a bank and its customers. It is impossible to define exhaustively the duties of care owned by bank to its customer. It depends upon the nature of service extended by the bank to its customers.  But one thing is certain that where a bank is providing service to its customers owes a duty to its customers to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized withdrawals from their accounts. As a corollary, there is no difficulty in holding that if a customer suffers a loss on account of the transactions not authorized by him, the bank is liable to the customer for the  said loss.”             

             As per policy of the State Bank of India and observations made by the  Hon’ble State Commission in  case Dr. Subhash Chander Vs. State Bank of India, First Appeal No.735 of 2013 decided on 07.03.2014

                “Undisputedly, there is policy of State Bank of India, that is, State Bank of India Compensation Policy (Banking Services)-2013,(Annexure  C/7).The relevant part of clause 4.1 of the policy is reproduced as under:

 

4.1            Unauthorized/Erroneous Debt  xxx     xxx      xxx In case of any amount has been debited in the account of a customer on account of fraudulent transactions the amount will be restored to the affected customer account without delay/demur, once the fraud is established.

Xxx           In case where neither  the bank is at fault nor the customer, but the fault lies elsewhere in the system, the bank will help in restoring the actual amount involved and as a gesture of goodwill and to deal with the customers fairly, will also compensate the customer with Rs.100/- per Rs.5000/- maximum Rs.1000/- for each instance.”

 

             Keeping in view  facts  of the case and the law laid down in  above  authorities, we allow the present complaint and  both the  OPs are  jointly and severally liable to restore the actual amount  of Rs.5000/- of the complainant in his account.

 

9.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against the OPs and direct them to restore the amount of Rs.5000/- to the account of the complainant. The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 17.02.2020.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                 President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                               Member.