Tripura

StateCommission

A/11/2023

State Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Durgapada Bhattacharya - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Mr. kajal Nandi, Mr. Sunil Bhowmik

03 Jul 2023

ORDER

J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

 

Heard Mr. Sunil Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, State Bank of India. Also heard Miss Nabanita Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Durgapada Bhattacharya, the respondent-complainant. 

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-State Bank of India against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned District Commission, Unakoti District, Kailashahar in connection with Case No.CC.03 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned District Commission directed the opposite party no.2, SBI Bazar Branch, Dharmanagar, the appellant no.2 herein, to arrange credit of Rs.10,000/- in the savings account of the complainant lying in the SBI, Bazar Branch, Thana Road, Dharmanagar. The opposite party no.2 is further directed to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation to the complainant, the respondent herein, for pain and suffering, either by way of cash/cheque or account transaction. The payment will be made within a period of two months from date of passing of the impugned judgment.
2. The facts narrated by the learned District Commission are as under:-

The case of the complainant as couched in the petition is that, he has a Bank Account with ATM facilities under the State Bank of India, Dharmanagar Bazar Branch i.e. the opposite party no.2, the appellant no.2 herein. On 27.12.2021, the complainant went to SBI ATM booth at Hospital Road, Dharmanagar to withdraw Rs.10,000/- through his ATM, but he did not receive any money, rather he received a message on his mobile phone that Rs.10,000/- has been debited from his bank account. Instantly, the complainant communicated with the Bank Authority about the incident. The Bank Authority received his complaint and advice him to wait for a week. On 21.01.2022, the complainant received a message from the Bank which stated as follows:–

“Dear SBI customer, Case – 81827628 is credited for the complaint registered by you and is expected to be resolved within 5 days.”   

On the same day at about 06.26 pm, the complainant received another message, contents of the SMS are as follows:-

“Dear customer, Thank you for Banking with us, Case-81827628 created for ATM Related–ATM RELATED-Account debited but cash not dispensed is under investigation and will be resolved soon. SBI Customer Care.”

But after waiting for five days, the complainant did not receive any money. Thereafter, the complainant met with the Branch Manager, SBI Main Branch, Dharmanagar, who advised him to go to SBI, Bazar Branch, Dharmanagar for display of CCTV video footage on the day of his transaction. The complainant accordingly went to Bazar Branch of SBI for display of the CCTV footage, but the Branch Manager did not do it, rather abused him for such request.

3. Being dissatisfied with the acts of the appellant-opposite party, the complainant had filed a complaint before the learned District Commission seeking refund of Rs.10,000/- with interest from the appellants-opposite party to his bank account and further claiming of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental pangs and agony.
4. Upon receipt of notice, the appellant-opposite parties appeared before the learned District Commission and filed their written objection denying all the allegations made by the complainant. It is stated by the appellant-opposite parties that the complaint petition is not maintainable as it was barred by the relevant provisions of law and there is no cause of action etc. The factual aspect as stretched out in the written statement is that on 21.01.2022, the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 with a complaint that on 27.12.2021, he used his ATM card to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from the ATM booth of SBI situated at Hospital Road, Dharmanagar, but he did not get the money from the ATM, instead he got a message on his mobile phone about debiting of Rs.10,000/- from his account vide No.20192546131. Accordingly, an online complaint was immediately lodged with SBI CRM (Customer Request and Complaint Form) and on the basis of which, a case was registered vide ID No.81827628. Thereafter, ATM Switch Centre, Belapur, inquired the details of the ATM transaction on 27.12.2021 in connection with SBI Account No. 20192546131 and ATM ID No. SIBW000067003 of the complainant. After investigation, it was found that the complainant's ATM transaction dated 27.12.2021 was successful in withdrawing of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM booth of SBI, Hospital Road, Dharmanagar and accordingly, his claim of Rs.10,000/- was rejected by CRM, SBI and his complaint was closed on 31.01.2022 which was intimated to the complainant by the Branch Manager, SBI, Dharmanagar Bazar Branch. It is further stated that the Branch Manager of appellant-opposite party no.2 is a responsible bank officer and he made every effort to resolve the issue with utmost seriousness and without any negligence. It is further stated that the complainant suppressed the essential material facts and without any proper information filed the complaint against the opposite parties for harassing them. It is also mentioned that the above bank account of the complainant is with SBI, Dharmanagar Bazar Branch, but the ATM from which he withdrew Rs.10,000/- belongs to SBI, Dharmanagar Main Branch and consequently, no CCTV footage is available with the appellant-opposite party no.2 and thus, the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and the evidences so adduced by the parties, while deciding the case, the learned District Commission had arrived at following findings:-

“7. Bank’s statement submitted by the complainant, which is marked as Ext.1, it shows that on 27-12-2021 there is debit of Rs.10,000/- from the bank account of the complainant bearing No. 20192546131 as ATM cash, Hospital Road. Ext. 2, mobile message dated 21-01-2022 given from the SBI CRM to the complainant states that ‘case – 81827628 is created for the complaint registered by him and is expected to be resolved within 5 D days.’ This shows that the OP bank registered case on the complaint of the complainant and assured to resolve the issue within next five days. On the same day, i.e., on 21-01-2022 another message was communicated from the SBI CRM which states that ‘case-81827628 created for ATM related-ATM related-account debited but cash not dispensed is under investigation and will be resolved soon.’

            The moot point in this case whether the cash alleged to be withdrawn from the ATM booth by the complainant was dispensed or not. According to complainant, he inserted the ATM card in the ATM booth on 27-12-2021 for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-, but in the process he did not receive the amount as cash was not dispensed. On the other hand, OP No.2 at the first instance inform the complainant when he lodged complaint with the OP No. 2 that the issue of non-receipt of the amount is under investigation and will be resolved soon and finally on inquiry OP No. 2 detected that the amount was really debited from the account of the complainant on 27-12-2021 and the complainant received the amount and as such, the case of the complainant was closed and the result was dully intimated to the complainant. On perusal of the bank statement as submitted by the complainant (Ext.1) it is found that in the statement there is indication of debit amount of Rs.10,000/- on 27-12-2021 as ATM cash from the ATM booth situated at Hospital Road, Dharmanagar. Sometimes it so happens that amount is not dispensed, but message is received regarding withdrawal of the amount, the technicality best known to the bank. This might be the case of the complainant. The bank statement submitted by the complainant is computer generated, i.e., software base and as such, if the amount was really debited, the computer will obviously show such debit. The complainant on the date of the alleged incident approach the OP No. 2 and informed the incident of nonreceipt of the amount and as such, there was ample scope on the part of the OP No. 2 to verify the account of the complainant on that day itself, but they did not do so. The episode could have been clear on the day of alleged transaction had the OP No. 2 verified the account of the complainant. In cross witness of the OP No. 2 clearly stated that he has not submitted any document relating to the opening and closing balance of the ATM on the date of incident. Had the OP No. 2 exercised the matter of opening and closing balance of the ATM on that date he could find out the matter, but neither in the written statement nor in the evidence the OP no. 2 has elicited this aspect. ATMs are under the coverage of CCTV and in the case at hand CCTV footage could clearly prove the episode of withdraw and cash dispensation of the amount by the complainant, but the OP No. 2 did not take any effort to collect the CCTV footage from the SBI, Bazar Branch, Dharmanagar. It is a fact that the bank authority- initiated enquiry and submitted enquiry report, but in cross OPW No.1 clearly admitted that he has not submitted any supportive document relating to Ext. A, verified copy of statements SBI CRM in connection with case Id No. 81827628, by which the OP No. 2 wanted to prove that transaction amount of Rs.10,000/- was dispensed. OP No. 2 also did not submit the certified copy of the inquiry report and also did not spell out the name of the person by whom the inquiry was made and as such, has not complied with section 4 of the Banker’s Book of Evidence Act and consequently, the documents submitted by the OP No. 2 showing that inquiry was made and it was found that transaction was successful, do not aid the OP No. 2 to prove that the complainant received the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 27-12-2021 and his claim is unreasonable and false. It is not expected that for a very negligible amount of Rs.10,000/- the complainant, who is a businessman, shall entangled himself in such complicacy. All the aforesaid discussions only answer that the complainant did not receive Rs.10,000/- on 27-12-2021 from the ATM booth maintained by the SBI, Bazar Branch, Dharmanagar. It cannot be denied that because of the activities of the OP No.2 the complainant went through sufferings and metal agony and ultimately, resorted to litigation and as such, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.7,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings.

8. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP No.2.

O r d e r

9. In the result, OP No.2, State Bank of India represented by the Manager, SBI, Bazar Branch, Dharmanagar is directed to arrange credit of Rs.10,000/- in the savings bank account of the complainant bearing No. 20192546131 lying in the SBI, Bazar Branch, Thana Road, Dharmanagar. The OP No. 2 is further directed to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as pain and sufferings, either by way of cash/check/ account transaction. It is made clear that the transaction shall have to be made within a period of 02(two) months from today.”

 

6.    We have carefully and minutely considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and the findings arrived at by the learned District Commission. We do not find any reason as to why the appellant-opposite party No.2 did not produce the CCTV footage before the learned District Commission and even not before this Commission. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellants.  

As a sequel, the instant appeal stands dismissed.