Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.09.2016
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to return Rs. 9,000/- ( Rs. Nine Thousand only ).
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five thousand only ) as compensation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has an account in State bank of India bearing no. 11024555909 in Patna Sachivalya Branch. The Bank had issued A.T.M. card in his favour. It has been further asserted that on 09.07.2009 the complainant attempted to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- from A.T.M. situated at Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna but only Rs. 1,000/- was disbursed instead of Rs. 10,000/- and in payment slip Rs. 10,000/- was written.
The grievance of the complainant is that Rs. 9,000/- remained with the A.T.M. and thereafter on the same day he registered his complaint in State Bank of India Sachivalaya Branch. The complainant has made a complaint to Bank Lokpal vide annexure – 3 but his grievance was not redressed.
On behalf of complainant a reminder dated 05.08.2009 under the signature of Assistant General Manager as well as A.T.M. slip has also been annexed as annexure – 1 and 2 besides an affidavit stating the aforesaid fact.
On behalf of opposite party State Bank of India a written statement have been filed stating therein that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in view of the facts that complainant has already availed the forum of banking ombudsman by filing a complaint ( annexure – 3) for the relief and the same is pending for consideration.
In Para – 8 of the aforesaid written statement opposite party has stated that after receiving a complaint from complainant on 09.07.2009 regarding withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from SBI A.T.M. Center Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna immediate action was taken and the transaction was verified in order to locate the complaint amount.
In Para – 9 of written statement the opposite party has stated as follows. “ that it is stated that on 05.08.2009 a reply was received in response to letter no. 1268/R/ATM 05.08.2009 ( annexure – 1) from the SBI, Patna main Branch vide letter no. ATM/123, which clearly indicates that the said transaction was successful with response code “000” as per J.P. Log report.”
The complainant has annexed the photocopy of letter dated 05.08.2009 as annexure – A.
It has been further asserted by opposite party that the complainant was informed about the real fact vide annexure – B. Thus in short it is the case of the opposite party that the transaction was successful.
On behalf of complainant a counter statement has been filed asserting the same fact which he had already stated in his complaint petition. He has also stated that the complaint which is filed by the complainant vide annexure – 3 to the secretary banking lokpal has not been decided by responsible authority of State Bank of India, Patna and Reserve Bank of India, Patna rather the authority have eye washed the entire matter.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is the case of the complainant that on 09.07.2009 he attempted to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- from A.T.M. of SBI situated at Maharaja Kameshwar Complex, Frazer Road, Patna but instead of Rs. 10,000/- he received only Rs. 1,000/- and rest amount remained in the A.T.M. Hence he is entitled to get Rs. 9,000/-. The opposite party has denied and asserted that the complainant received Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 1,000/-.
The complainant has also filed a photocopy of A.T.M. slip and on behalf of opposite party a A.T.M. transaction report with J.P. Log of aforesaid transaction has been annexed as annexure – A which shows that the transaction was successful and the complainant withdrew Rs. 10,000/-. Even the A.T.M. slip annexed by the complainant as annexure – 2 shows that the withdrawal of amount by the complainant was Rs. 10,000/-. There is nothing on the record to show that annexure – A filed by opposite party is not correct. In absence of any cogent evidence we have no option but to accept the facts mentioned in A.T.M. report as well as J.P.Log which has been filed by opposite party as annexure – A.
For the discussion made above we find and hold that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party and as such this complaint petition stands dismissed.
Member President
