View 13206 Cases Against State Bank Of India
View 13206 Cases Against State Bank Of India
View 23765 Cases Against Bank Of India
View 23765 Cases Against Bank Of India
State Bank of India filed a consumer case on 03 Jul 2023 against Sri Durgapada Bhattacharya in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/11/2023 and the judgment uploaded on 21 Jul 2023.
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.
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.
“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.”
As a sequel, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.