Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/569

Suman Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBOP - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Gupta

16 Mar 2015

ORDER

First Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.569 of 2011  

 

                                                Date of institution :  29.03.2011.   

                                                   Date of Decision  :  16.03.2015.

 

Suman Singh son of Watan Singh, resident of Kothi No.11, Street No.1, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

 

                             ….….Appellant/Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

State Bank of Patiala, Sadiq, District Faridkot, through its Branch Manager.

….….Respondent/Opposite party.

 

First Appeal against order dated 29.12.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.

Before:-

 

               SH.J.S.KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

               SH.VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:-

 

              For the appellant         : Sh.Ashish Gupta, Advocate

              For the respondent      : Sh.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate

 

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER :

           This appeal has been preferred by appellant (‘complainant’ in the complaint) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against respondent, (being opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 29.12.2010 in Consumer Complaint No.30 of 2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short the ‘District Forum’), vide which, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.                The brief facts of the case are that Sh.Suman Singh, complainant filed the complaint under the Act against the opposite party on the averments that he was having saving account No.55056596361 in the branch of opposite party.  He was regularly operating the above account.  He was working in Punjab State Electricity Department and his salary was being regularly deposited in his above said saving account.  It was alleged that the opposite party had illegally withdrawn a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the account of the complainant on 08.09.2009 without any prior notice or information to him.  The complainant served a registered notice dated 16.12.2009 to the opposite party in this regard.  The opposite party, in spite of this notice, has not deposited/refunded the amount, so illegally deducted by them.  Hence, the complainant filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- to him, which has been illegally and unlawfully withdrawn from his saving account by the OP and to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for his mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as his litigation expenses. 

3.                The complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing the written reply before the District Forum.  It was submitted in the reply by the OP, that from the detail of the transaction in the account of the complainant, it has been revealed that on 29.06.2009, the complainant had operated/withdrawn the amount of Rs.20,000/-, vide transaction no.2487 by using his ATM card No.6038455005700002069 at the ATM machine of Axis Bank Ltd., installed at Kamina Gate, Faridkot.  This fact was revealed when Link Office (50888) debited the amount of Rs.20,000/- branch office 98581 Sadiq on 11.08.2009 and ATM switch centre had already debited link office on 11.08.2009 Rs.20,000/-.  Details of the debit were conveyed, vide letter dated 11.08.2009 by SBOP Link Office, Mumbai CBD Bela Mumbai to the Branch Manager, SBOP, Sadiq.  On receipt of letter, when account No.55056596361 of the complainant was checked and transaction was verified, then it was revealed that complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.20,000/- on 29.06.2009 by using his ATM card, but due to technical error, the entry has been wrongly credited on the same date and mischievously complainant had again withdrawn Rs.20,000/- on 07.07.2009.  It was further submitted that he withdrew Rs.20,000/- on 29.06.2009 by using ATM card and later on, it was found that due to some technical error, the entry was reversed and credited again in his account.  It was further submitted that the complainant was bound to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- and he was called upon to pay/return the same, but he did not do so.  OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, legal notice Ex.C-2, postal receipt Ex.C-3, account statement Ex.C-4, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-5, copy of mini statement from ATM Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence the transaction No.2486 and 2487 Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2,  affidavit of T.L.Verma Ex.R-3, copy of letter dated 11.8.2009 Ex.R-4, affidavit of H.P. Bhardwaj Ex.R-5, List of ATM transactions dated 29.06.2009 Ex.R-6, affidavit of T.L.Verma Ex.R-7, copy of JP Log Ex.R-8, copy of account statement Ex.R-9 and closed the evidence.   On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order under challenge in this appeal.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone though the record of the case.   As per the allegation of the complainant, the opposite party wrongly transferred Rs.20,000/- from his saving account on 08.09.2009 without any prior notice or intimation to him.  Affidavit of the complainant is Ex.C-5, in which, he deposed that on 29.06.2009, he tried to operate the ATM account by putting ATM Card, but at that time, the ATM machine was not working and no amount was withdrawn by him due to defective ATM machine at that time.  He further deposed that he approached the ATM of SBI and took the mini statement of his account, but nothing has been shown to be withdrawn.  He placed on record the mini statement vide Ex.C-6.  On the other hand, version of the OP is that as per record on 29.06.2009, the complainant approached the ATM and withdrew Rs.20,000/- by using his ATM card at ATM Machine of Axis Bank Limited installed at Kamina Gate, Faridkot.  This fact has been revealed when Link Office (50888) debited branch office 98581 Sadiq Rs.20,000/- on 11.08.2009 and ATM switch centre had already debited link office on 11.08.2009.  The detail of debit were conveyed, vide letter dated 11.08.2009 by SBOP Link Office, Mumbai CBD Bela Mumbai to the Branch Manager, SBOP, Sadiq.  On receipt of the said letter, the opposite party checked the transaction of the complainant and found that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- on 29.06.2009 due to technical error, however, the entry has been mistakenly credited on the same date in the credit of complainant and complainant mischievously again withdrawn Rs.20,000/- on 07.07.2009.  Sh.H.P.Bhardwaj, Deputy Manager SBIOP has given the affidavit Ex.R-5, in which, he also deposed about the same version.  We have perused the Job log (Ex.R-1) on the record and it revealed that the complainant had approached and withdrawn Rs.20,000/-, vide transaction No.2487 on 29.06.2009 by using the ATM Card No.60384550057402069 at the ATM machine of Axis Bank installed at Kamina Gate, Faridkot.  As per the affidavit of T.L.Verma Branch Manager of SBOP   (Ex.R-7) in which, he deposed that mini statement taken from ATM did not reflect the reversal transactions thereof.  That is why in (Ex.C-6) instead of showing ATM withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- it showed the digit 0.00.  The opposite party has also placed on record the list of ATM transactions dated 29.06.2009 vide Ex.R-6.  As per the Certificate given by Axis Bank (Ex.R-2) in which, it was mentioned that no cash was found in excess in Kamina ATM on 29.06.2009 regarding record No.2487 dated 29.06.2009. But, the cash which related to the transaction in question, has been received by the Axis Bank from SBOP on account of transaction detailed in Ex.R-1.  So, it can be safely concluded that cash has been disbursed to the person who presented at 2487.  The stand of the complainant is that the ATM machine was not working where as per JP Log Ex.R-1 it was shown that the ATM machine  working was in order.  So, the contention of the complainant is not found to be credible.  The correct findings have been recorded by the District Forum in the order under challenge in this appeal.  The order of the District Forum in question deserve to be affirmed in this appeal.

6.                Sequel to the above discussions, the appeal of the appellant is found meritless and same is hereby dismissed by upholding the order of the District Forum dated 29.12.2010.

7.                The arguments in this appeal were heard on 04.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

8.                The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.          

 

                                                                                               (J.S.Klar)

                                                                                  Presiding Judicial Member

 

 

 

March 16,  2015.                                                  (Vinod Kumar Gupta)

Lb/-                                                                                    Member