Orissa

Nuapada

CC/13/2018

Balkrishna Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India, represented through Chief Manager,SBI, Nuapada - Opp.Party(s)

Sri H.K.Patel

26 Dec 2018

ORDER

In the matter of complaint petition filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite parties.

 

The factual matrix of the case is that :-

          The Complainant is a Retired Teacher having his Bank Account in State Bank of India at Nuapada Main Branch Vide Account No. 11200099726 and he is a resident of village Siallati within the district of Nuapada.  On 02.9.2016 the complainant went to the ATM Counter of State Bank of India (ADB Branch) at Nuapada to withdraw  an amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand) and he used the ATM Card in the said machine but no cash was pulled out from the machine and an advisory was reflected in the monitor of the machine that maximum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only can be withdrawn at a time from the machine and as such  the complainant used his ATM Card again and withdrew of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) as per the advisory.  Later on the complainant found a message in his mobile that Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand) has been debited from his account along-with other message of debited of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand).  As the said amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand) was not withdrawn by the complainant, then he rushed to the Main Branch, State Bank of India at Nuapada and narrated the whole story before O.P. No. 1 and he lodged his oral complaint before O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 1 assured him to sort-out the problem within couple of days.  When the said amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand)  was not credited to the account of complainant, the complainant lodged a written complaint time and again on 24.10.2016, 23.02.2017 and 01.03.2017 before O.P. No. 1 but O.P. No. 1 not credited the said amount as yet.  Thereafter on 06.6.2017 O.P. No. 1 informed the complainant in written that they had lodged a complaint in CMS and verified EJ Log.  According to the EJ Log the transaction was successful.  But the complainant denied the successful transaction he has not withdrawn the said amount.  But the complainant further alleged that  O.P.No.1 has failed to credit the said amount to the account of complainant for which the complainant is suffering financial loss and mental agony due to deficiency in service by the opposite parties.

          The cause of action for this complaint arosed on 06.6.2017 at Nuapada when O.P. No. 1 informed the complainant in a belated stage through letter showing the said failed transaction as successful transaction for which the complainant claimed for relief’s as prayed for.

          The complainant has filed the documents in support of their claim as under :-

1)    Self attested Xerox copy of Passbook with statement of accounts of complainant bearing Savings Account No. 11200099726 issued by SBI, Nuapada as  (Annexure-1)

2)    Self attested xerox copy of letter dated 01.03.2017 of complainant to O.P. No.1 as  (Annexure-2)

3)    Self attested  xerox  copy of Voter Identity Card as  (Annexure-3)

4)    Letter dated 06.6.2017 issued by O.P. No. 1 to the complainant as  (Annexure-4)

Being noticed, opposite parties have appeared through their Advocate and filed their written version and challenged the allegations of complaint petition filed by the complainant in this case.  The O.Ps have stated in their version that the complainant only on 01.03.2017 given a written complain to the O.P. No. 1 in belated stage and after thought to cause harassment to the O.Ps to which the O.P. No. 1 replied on 06.06.2017 after ascertaining the facts of transaction.  The O.Ps  have further stated in their version that if the complainant had complained about alleged non unsuccessful transaction within 90 (Ninety) days from the date of transaction to the O.P. No. 1 he should have shown the footing of Video Camera used in ATM Room.  The recording of Video Camera  eliminated after 90 (Ninety) days. But the complainant complained the matter after 90 days intentionally to harass the O.Ps and to avoid the complicacy of the Video Camera and as such the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant has no cause of action to file this case.

     The Opposite parties have filed the documents in support of their claims as under :-

A)   Computer Generated EJ Log relating to the disputed transaction as (Annexure-A).

B)   In put reference relating to the disputed transaction as (Annexure-B).

C)   ATM i. ALORTS relating to the disputed transaction as  (Annexure-C).

D)   RESPONSE CODE used for ATM transaction as (Annexure-D).

In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :-

I)             Is there any cause of action  ?

II)           Whether any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties  ?

III)          To what relief, the complainant is entitled to  ?

 

ISSUE No. I & II :-

 

          On perusal of case records, it is found that on 02.9.2016, the complainant went to the ATM Counter of State Bank of India (ADB Branch) at Nuapada to withdraw an amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand) and he used the ATM Card in the said machine but no cash was pulled out from the said machine and again the complainant used the ATM Card  and withdrew of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand).  Later on the complainant found a message in his mobile that Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand) has been debited from his account as the said amount was not withdrawn by the complainant for which he rushed to the Main Branch of State Bank of India at Nuapada and complained the above facts before O.P. No. 1 and thereafter O.P.   No. 1 assured him to sort-out the complain early as possible.  Thereafter when the said amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand) was not credited to his account, the complainant lodged a written complaint time and again  on 24.10.2016, 23.02.2017 and 01.03.2017 before O.P. No. 1 but O.P. No. 1 failed to credit the same to the account of complainant as yet.

 

          In such an uncongenial situation and without any option, the complainant knocked the door of this Forum.

 

          Further it is seen that, after a long period i.e. on 06.6.2017, O.P. No. 1 informed the complainant through a written letter which is Annexure-4  as filed by the complainant.

 

          In another point is that Annexure-4 is disputed transaction as issued by O.P. No. 1 and it is admitted that the complainant lodged a written complaint on 24.10.2016 and 23.02.2017 before O.P. No. 1.

 

          Here, opposite parties have taken a plea that the complaint of complainant is beyond 90 (Ninety) days and it is not possible to preserve the CC TV Footage as the Video Camera eliminated after 90 (Ninety)  days.  But it is seen that the complaint of complainant is within 90 (Ninety) days and once the transaction is disputed, it is the duty of opposite parties to preserve the CC TV Footage and to clarify the complainant on his complaint as the complaint is within the limitation and there is cause of action.  But here, opposite parties have failed to give proper service to the complainant as yet which is squarely absurd by him.

 

          In another point is that opposite parties have not filed any CC TV Footage to prove that the complainant has withdrawn the said amount from the ATM on the very day.

 

          So, the plea of opposite parties are unbelievable and it is evasive and as such opposite parties have failed to prove in this case.

 

          Here, the Consumer Protection Act is social legislation and there is need to strike down such practices and need to give proper redressal to the consumers.

 

          So, from the perusal of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 applied to all type of goods, and all type of services availed by the consumer against consideration paid, or promised.  Section 1 (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is of wide connotation.

 

          Here, we quote a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES .. Vrs .. BALBIR SINGH, that each and every element of suffering while availing service as a consumer as to be taken into consideration while compensating him in the loss of injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence or deficiency in service of the service provider.

 

          In further, the Apex Court has held that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, is an addition and not in derogation of any other law.

 

          Supporting to the above findings, we quote an another most vital decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in his Revision Petition No. 3369 of 2014, “TN RAVI PRAKASH .. Vrs… THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, Decided on 08.6.2018.

 

          Perused the documents of complainant as well as the documents of opposite parties and basing on that we found that the case of complainant is justified and relevant and as such taken in consideration.

 

          In the above case, the Advocate for complainant as well as the Advocate for opposite parties have argued in support of their claim.

 

          Here, we assessed that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties.  As such it is the duty of opposite parties to provide proper service and proper information to the complainant in time.   But here, opposite parties  have failed to do the same in this case.

 

          Hence, it is apparent from the above issues that there is a deficiency in service by the opposite parties as not attending properly to the grievance of the complainant for which the complainant  is suffering financial loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency in service by the opposite parties.

          So, we are of considered opinion that there is a deficiency in service by the opposite parties.  Thus opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service.

 

          Accordingly, the issues are answered and goes in favour of the complainant.

 

ISSUE No. III :-

          It is clear crystal that the complainant has proved his case and he is entitled to get relief in this case.  Hence order.

                               O  R  D  E  R.

          In the aforesaid matrix of facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct U/s 14 (i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as below :-

1)    We direct the opposite parties to credit the amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand) in the account of complainant along with interest @ 9% (Nine percent) per annum from 02.9.2016 till payment within 45 (Forty five) days from the date of order.

 

2)    We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 3,000/-( Rupees Three thousand) only  to the complainant as compensation towards financial loss and mental agony and further pay as Rs.2,000/-( Rupees Two thousand)  towards litigation cost within 45 (Forty five) days from the date of order.

 

3)    Failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per process of law.