The appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 15.12.2020 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda in D.F.C Case No 21 of 2018. The fact of the case in nutshell is that one Gopa Sarcar the respondent of this Case has filed a Written Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda under Section 12 of C.P Act, 1986 to the affect that she, a bonafide customer of State Bank of India Malda Branch having savings account Bearing No 11175480304 along with all facilities including ATM and money deposit through ATM machine. On 14.03.2018 she deposited Rs. 24,000/- denomination of which was Rs. 2,000 X 12 at DRM Branch of S.B.I Malda. The machine gorged the money but it was found the said money was not credited in her account. She reported the incident to S.B.I DRM Branch and S.B.I main Branch of Malda. The both branches have refused to receive the written complaint from the Complainant. Verbally She was assured by the Bank Officials that if she had deposited the said money Rs. 24,000/- in the ATM machine then the said money be transferred to her from reconciliation account of the system but it was not affected. So, she registered a written complaint as S.B.I D.R.M. Branch on 21.03.2018. The S.B.I D.R.M Branch Malda on 26.03.2018 by a reply letter addressing to the Complainant informed her that after checking the ATM machine and after going through the EJI Log of the said TXN No 3785 of Rs. 24,000/- and also found that the said TXN was cancelled by the teller machine and the Complainant removed the cash from the machine at 18:12:17 Hrs on 14.03.2018. The Complainant was not satisfied with the answer of the concerned Bank as the Complainant had deposited the money and left the place after depositing the same and the machine gorged the money and thereafter, she left the ATM machine. But subsequently it was found that the said cash was not credited to her account. It is deficiency on the part of the Bank Officials and for that reason she registered the instant Consumer Complaint. The State Bank of India has contested the case by separate W.V and contended inter-alia that on 14.03.2018 the Complainant deposited the said cash of Rs. 24,000/- but the machine did not grab the same and it was returned back to her at about 18:13:45 hrs on that very day and even receiving the return money by the Complainant by means of unfair tactics has registered this case and the instant Consumer Complaint should be dismissed. The Ld. Forum after recording evidences and after hearing the arguments of both sides have delivered the impugned order by which the Ld. Forum came into conclusion that the said ATM machine was not properly functioning and for that reason the bonafide customer of Bank has lost the money of Rs. 24,000/- and it was latches or deficiency of service of the Bank Authority and for that reason Ld. Forum has passed the impugned order by which the O.P Bank was directed to pay back Rs. 24,000/- to the Complainant along with 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost and Ld. Forum also observed that it is necessary on the part of the Bank Officials to make arrangement for proper CCTV coverage within the periphery of ATM machine. The State Bank of India being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from some irregularities and inherent defects and instant order should be set aside. The appeal was admitted on merit, notice was sent to the respondent/complainant who has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate. The appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides.

Decision with reasons

During the course of argument admitted position appears that the complainant/respondent Gopa Sarcar is a permanent client of S.B.I. D.R.M. Branch. She went to S.B.I. D.R.M, Malda ATM counter on 14.03.2018 and deposited Rs. 24,000/- 2000 X 12 to the hole of the machine. The appellant’s case is that the machine rejected the currency which came out from the machine. Thereafter, the respondent and her companion tried again and again to deposit the currency again and again but the machine could not accept the currency due to some system failure. The respondent came out from the ATM machine with the said currency at 18:12:17 hrs on 14.03.2018 but due to some ulterior motive the respondent has registered the false Consumer Complaint and in reply letter dated 26.03.2018 the S.B.I Authority has informed her about the inability of receiving the said money in the said ATM machine and for that reason there was no scope to have a credit of Rs. 24,000/- in the S.B.I account of the Complainant. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of argument referred a judicial decision in connection with M/S Shimla Auto Mobile and Others Vs S.C. Mahajan and Others where Hon’ble State Commission of H.P decided in that case that non-disclosure of cause of action, the Consumer Complaint was liable to be rejected. He argued in this particular case the Complainant did not disclose the date of cause of action and for want of specific date of cause of action in the Consumer Complaint the Ld. Forum had the opportunity to dismiss the Consumer Complaint. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of argument highlighted the Annexure – D which speaks that on 14.03.2018 while the ATM machine rejected the money from receiving and the money was removed from the machine the Complainant/Respondent collected the same at 18:12:17 hrs. According to CCTV footage document produced by the Bank shows the transaction of depositing Rs. 24,000/- on the part of the respondent at the ATM machine was unsuccessful and EJI Log speaks the same and the concerned CD of the system showing removal of the money from the ATM machine by the Complainant which was furnished to her Vide Letter dated 05.05.2018 addressing to the Complainant in reply to the R.T.I. Act, 2005. Ld. Advocate of the appellant further submits that the CCTV footage against account No. 11175480304 attached to the Mobile Phone No. 9434303365 and the printed footage of CCTV clearly indicates the Complainant/Respondent came to the said ATM machine on 14.03.2018 and started to proceed with the deposit of money into the machine of Rs. 2,000 X 12 at 18:04:10 hrs and in several occasions the respondent tried to deposit the said cash into the teller machine and put the money into the hopper but subsequently the currency was removed from the hopper machine and at last at about 18:13:44 hrs the respondent got return the said money and left the ATM machine. The Ld. Advocate of the respondent at the time of argument mentioned the CCTV footage was not supplied to the respondent when she registered the written complaint before the S.B.I Authority. The further argument raised by the respondent is that no expert evidence is there on the part of the S.B.I to prove that the teller machine did not accept the cash Rs. 24,000/- deposited by the respondent on that day. It is further argued that the footage of CCTV was not produced by the appellant Bank rather only the footage document copy was produced which has no authenticity and no expert opinion was sought for to prove that the said footage document or CD copy was prepared on the basis of CCTV footage. After hearing all the valuable arguments canvassed before this Bench we find that against the document prepared from CCTV footage furnished by the appellant Bank no contrary evidence could be tendered on the part of the Complainant/Respondent. Ld. Forum has observed that the Complainant is a school teacher and there is no reasonable cause to belief that she came with the false allegation against the Bank. It is further observed on the part of Ld. Forum that the ATM machines was not well protected and maintained by the Bank Authority and the incident of harassments of the clients of the Bank are gradually increasing day by day and for that reason the Ld. Forum in order to compensate the Respondent/Complainant has passed the impugned order. This Bench finds besides the document of CCTV footage the Bank Authority could not produce the statement of opening stock of cash and closing stock of cash in the said teller machine by which there was a probability to assume as to whether excess cash was deposited or not on that very day beyond the successful transacted money. On the contrary, in order to reduce the man power of the nationalized Banks the ATM machine and other gadgets and technical facilities are being adopted in the Banking system and sometimes the machine did not function in a proper manner and problems of customers for that reason are also increasing day by day. Sometimes the clients swapped the ATM card for withdrawal of money but the process of withdrawal fails due to disfunction of the ATM machine but the unreleased withdrawal money are debited from the account and also sometimes the process of reverse credit also do not materialize. Here in this case a woman makes allegations that she has lost Rs. 24,000/- for misfunctioning of the ATM machine and there was no reasonable ground to disbelief her. Ld. Forum has rightly observed that the ATM machines installed by the Bank Authority sometimes creates all the concern of the users and for that reason a bonafide customer should not be penalized by losing hard earned money. The order of Ld. Forum appears to be convincing and materialistic and did not find any irregularity or any mistake in appreciating the fact and circumstances of the case. So, the appeal devoids on merit. It is also fact that Bank Authority also had to rely upon the system adopted by the management of the Bank and if the machine disfunctions, Bank has nothing to do. The Bank was directed by the Ld. Forum to return back Rs. 24,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant and to make her compensate for harassment by giving Rs. 15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Such amount is not exorbitant and if the Bank Authority credit the said amount into the respondent Gopa Sarcar’s savings account within 45 days from this day then the Bank will be absolved from any further payment as interest at the rate of 5% per-annum over the awarded money as the Bank could not comply the order of Ld. Forum in due time.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the Instant appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without cost. However, the opportunity is given to the appellant Bank to deposit the awarded money (Rs.24,000+15,000+10,000) within 45 days by crediting the said money into the savings account of the Complainant/Respondent then the Bank will be absolved from the liability of further payment of 5% per-annum as interest for non-compliance of the payment order of the Ld. Forum.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and same to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda.