BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/115 of 19.2.2010 Decided on: 10.5.2011 Jagparshad s/o Munesar R/o H.No.126, Street No.2, Ranjit Vihar, Sirhind Road, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. State Bank of Patiala,Model Town Branch, Patiala through its Branch Manager. 2. Bank of Baroda, City Branch Amethi Branch through its Branch Manager,U.P.(Uttar Pradesh) 3. State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its General Manager. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.P.S.Walia , Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.Hemant Nanda, Advocate No.1&3 For opposite party No.3: Sh.Anil Puri,Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT It is the grievance of the complainant Sh.Jagparshad that he holds saving account No.10005515013 maintained with the State Bank of Patiala, Model Town, Branch,Patiala and is also having ATM card facility, the number of the card being 6038455067100001836. 2. On 21.5.2009, the complainant went to withdraw a sum of Rs.20000/- from the ATM of the bank of Baroda, Railway Station Branch Amethi by way of feeding his account no., but due to some technical defect in the ATM , the complainant failed to receive the amount through the ATM. The guard on duty disclosed the complainant that there was a defect in the ATM and he should report the matter to the Branch Manager. Immediately, the complainant brought the matter to the notice of the Branch Manager of the bank of Baroda, City Branch Amethi, but despite repeated requests made by the complainant nothing was done. 3. It is further averred that an amount of Rs.20000/- have been debited from the account of the complainant by the State Bank of Patiala , Model Town Branch, Patiala as shown in the statement of account of the complainant, which amount was not received by him through the ATM of bank of Baroda City Branch Amethi on 24.5.2009. 4. The complainant approached the ops on 19.10.2009 with a request to look into the matter but to no effect . Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act)for a direction to the ops to refund the amount of Rs.20000/-wrongly debited from his account; to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- by way of compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and further to a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs of the litigation. 5. On notice ops appeared. Ops no.1&3 filed their joint written statement while op no.3 filed its written statement separately. 6. In the written statement filed by ops no.1&3, it is averred that the complainant had, as per the record of the ops, withdrawn a sum of Rs.20000/- from the ATM of the bank of Baroda, Railway Station Branch Amethi and the same was debited in the saving account of the complainant maintained with op no.1 immediately on the withdrawal of the amount and transaction in that regard was successful, as per record supplied by the Mumbai office of ops no.1&3.Had the ATM not withdrawn the amount, it would have shown an unsuccessful display on the screen. On receipt of the complaint from the complainant op no.1 enquired into the matter from the Mumbai office of ops no.1&3 and it was found that the transaction regarding the withdrawal of Rs.20000/- on 21.5.2009 was actually made. Ultimately this set of the ops prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 7. In the written statement filed by op no.2, it is averred that as per the records the complainant had operated the ATM installed at Railway Station Amethi (U.P.) on 21.5.2009 at 14.44 hours. Printout of the transaction effected on that day shows that the transaction was successful and the amount of Rs.20000/- was paid to the operator of the card. The allegation made up by the complainant was processed and ultimately it was found that the transaction regarding the withdrawal of Rs.20000/- was successful and there was no substance in the complaint. Ultimately this op also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 8. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit, Ex.C1 and his learned counsel closed evidence. 9. On behalf of ops no.1&3, their learned counsel tendered in evidence the sworn affidavit, Ex.R1 of Mr.Major Singh Dy.Manager of op no.1 at Patiala alongwith documents, Exs.R2 and R3 and closed their evidence. 10. On behalf of op no.2, its learned counsel tendered in evidence, the sworn affidavit, Ex.R4 of Mr.Daya Shanker Mishra, alongwith documents, Exs.R5 to R7 and closed the evidence. 11. The parties filed their written arguments. We have examined the written arguments, heard the learned counsel of the parties and also gone through the evidence/record on the file. 12. Ex.R2 is the copy of the letter dated 19.6.2009 written by the Branch Manager of op no.1 to the Manager State Bank of Patiala Link Office SBI NGO building CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai in respect of “Faulty transaction at Bank of Baroda, City Branch, Amethi Branch dated 21.5.2009 for Rs.20000/-“ having informed that they were approached by their customer Sh.Jag Parshad with a complaint that he had operated ATM of bank of Baroda, City Branch,Amethi on 21.5.2009 for the withdrawal of Rs.20000/- but no cash was dispensed with to him rather Rs.20000/-had been debited to his account. Accordingly, it was requested to take up the matter. Ex.R3 is the e-mail dated 18.3.2010 written by the Channal Manager State Bank of Patiala (Mumbai) to the Manager Link Office State Bank of Patiala having disclosed about the successful transaction of Rs.20000/-made on 21.5.2009 with Bank of Baroda. The same also contains the copy of jp log.The separate copy of the jp has also been produced as Ex.R6 disclosing the ATM ID: IFDLUC 26.Seq.No:2951, Card No:6038455000000001836 and withdrawal of the cash amount as : Rs.20000/-. 13. We do agree with the plea taken up by ops no.1&3 that had the ATM not withdrawn the amount of Rs.20000/- it would have displaced the unsuccessful transaction on the screen but the copy of the jp log,Ex.R6 shows the withdrawal of Rs.20000/- at Seq. No.2951 at 14.44 on 21.5.2009 vide card No.6038455000000001836 and account No.0000010005515013. Therefore, it is not possible for us to accept the plea of the complainant that when he had operated the ATM of op no.2 on 21.5.2009 the same had not provided the amount of Rs.20000/-. 14. No evidence has been led by the complainant that the working of the ATM was, in any way, affected by a mechanical fault. He could ask the Branch Manager of op no.2 for a mechanical check up of the ATM, but such a course was not adopted by the complainant. We also find that had the amount of Rs.20000/- not been withdrawn from the ATM of op no.2 on 21.5.2009, certainly the ATM would show the excess amount in its storage and it can not be believed that the bank would not have taken a note of the same. It is always the endeavour of the banks to provide the best of the services to its customers to save them from such an harassment and therefore, it would appear that there is no substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Pronounced. Dated:10.5.2011 Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member President
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | , | | 
