DATE OF FILING                    :           01-04-2012.

DATE OF S/R                          :           09-05-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER        :         22-01-2013.

Smt. Purabi Saha,

wife of Chandan Saha,

residing at 162/7, S.N. Roy Road,

P.O. Sahapur, P.S. Behala,

Kolkata – 700038.---------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

Versus   -

1.            A.T.M. A.G.M. Mr. P. Banerjee,

State Bank of India, Samriddhi Bhawan,

1, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001.

2.            Branch Manager,

                State Bank of India,

                Howrah Station Branch,

                Howrah.

3.            Chief General Manager,

                State Bank of India,

                Samriddhi Bhawan, 1, Strand Road,

                Kolkata – 700001. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

Complainant, Smt. Purabi Saha, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P.

Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the  o.ps. to refund the principal sum being Rs. 20,000/- with interest, to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, litigation cost and other relief as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

Brief fact of the case is that being a customer of o.p. no. 2 i.e. SBI Howrah

Station Branch complainant wanted to withdraw Rs. 500/- on 09-01-2011 from an ATM Counter of o.ps. situated inside the old complex of Howrah Station but found that the said counter was not working properly as the computer did not show the 'option' to input her secret code. So, she left the said counter and visited another counter attached with her own branch and she withdrew Rs. 500/-. But while checking customer advice, she became surprised to see that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was being shown less in her balance amount. So, she checked twice but the same result came on 10-01-2011, she went to her own branch, i.e., o.p. no. 2, to update her pass book and pass book also showed a balance amount of  Rs. 58,333.92 instead of Rs. 78,337.92. Immediately, on 10-01-2011, she lodged a complaint with her  branch vide Annexures 4 & 5 and on 14-01-2011 she again wrote a letter to o.p. no. 1 with the same complaint vide Annexure 6. But no satisfactory result came out. As Mr. P. Banerjee, A.T.M. A.G.M, O.P. no.1, told her to forget about that amount as that money could not be recovered by them and suggested her to accept the entire amount as snatched or lost. And when she complained about the absence of any security at the A.T.M. Counter while led to such unhappy incident, o.p. no. 1 replied that it was not possible for them to recruit any security personnel on their behalf and suggested her to go to police and lodge a diary as they could recover and rescue her money. And o.p. no. 1 further asked her to go to his office after two weeks. When she went to his office, o.p. no. 1 showed her a computer video photocopy of two unknown persons and asked her to catch those two persons to recover her money. On such advice, she lodged a complaint to O.C., G.R.P., Howrah Railway Station, on 17-01-2011 vide Annexure 8 along with other annexures. She even wrote to o.p. no. 3 with all details vide Annexure 7.  But all efforts went in vain. She could not get her money back. And finding no other alternative, she filed this instant case with above mentioned prayers.   

Notices were served upon o.ps. Only o.p. no. 2 appeared and filed written

version. Other o.ps. did not appear and file any written version. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte against o.p. nos. 1 & 3.

4.            Upon pleadings of  parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                            Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.             We have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.p. no. 2 and noted its contents. It is the specific plea of the o.p. no. 2 that  Rs. 20,000/- had been withdrawn either by the complainant herself or by her agent as secret code i.e. PIN number remains in the custody of the card holder. And without entering that PIN, the transaction cannot be a successful one. And those two persons, who could be seen in the photo copy of computer videography, could have withdrawn such amount in collusion with her. But at the same time vide para 3 of affidavit in chief filed by o.p. no. 2, o.p. no. 2 had taken a plea that most probably she had forgotten to press the bottom right of the

ATM and the next person might have availed of the said amount as it appears from the computer video photography. Here, we find o.p. no. 2 has playing double standard forgetting their own duty towards their customers. As per their version, ATM machines are automatic. If it is so, even if the customer forgets to press bottom of the computer of ATM, after certain time length, it is should have been closed automatically. O.p. no. 2 has also alleged that the PIN Code is selected by the customer himself or herself containing four digits so it is impossible for others to know that personal identification number. But it is our question, to ourselves whether it is impossible to know for the bank. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission.  Bank should have been more carful as they are dealing with public money, peopl's confidence. People keep their hard earned money with the banks with the hope that at the time of necessity, urgency they can easily get money from bank. Here in this case, to protect their own image, bank has taken a plea that money had been withdrawn by two unknown persons in collusion with the complainant. Complainant being a lady, a railway employee will put herself into this kind of hazards like going one official to another to recover her money when she is involved in the whole incident as per o.p.'s contention which sounds to be meritless. Complainant being a Government employee knows very well that if such kind of collusion is proved, a very strict action could be taken against her. This is nothing but o.ps.' utter negligence for which complainant lost her money.  

                Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit with costs against o.ps. 

                Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

                Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

                That the C. C. Case No. 30 of 2012 ( HDF 30 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against the O.P. no. 2 and ex parte against o.p. nos. 1 & 3 with costs.   

                That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d. Rs. 50/- per day shall be imposed till actual refund.

                That the o.ps. are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs within one month from the date of this order i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 12,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.

                The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.               

                Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.