Haryana

Karnal

116/2013

Ajmer Chand S/o Swaran Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Singh

26 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.116 of 2013

                                                          Date of instt.4.03.2015

                                                          Date of decision:20.03.2015

 

Ajmer Chand son of Shri Swaran Singh resident of House no.1122-B, Dayanand Colony, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Model Town,Branch, Karnal.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.Rajinder Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.S.K.Malhotra Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the OP alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that he was having saving account No. 1009307099-5 with the  OP and on 8.02.2013  the complainant used the  ATM Machine  of the OP and tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from the ATM Machine but the  amount could not be withdrawn  but a slip came out from the machine in which transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was shown .  The complainant thereafter  approached the OP and made protest about the incident and the officials of OP assured the complainant to redress the grievance of the complainant but the officials of the OP continued to postpone the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately amount was not returned which tantamounts to deficiency in services.  The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the  complaint.

2.       On notice the OP   filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint doesnot disclose any cause of action and that the complainant has no loucs standi to file the present complaint.

          On merits, it was contended that  the complainant   on the given day and time the complainant operated ATM and the transaction was successful and it is incorrect that no amount was disbursed by the ATM and it was also contended that and there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                Therefore,  from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the  complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that he was having saving account No. 1009307099-5 with the  OP   and on 8.2.2013 the complainant used ATM Machine of OP  and tried to withdrew Rs.10,000/- from the ATM Machine but the  amount could not be withdrawn  but a slip came out from the machine in which transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was shown .  The complainant thereafter went to the OP and made complaint and the officials of the OP assured the complainant to redress the grievance of the complainant but the officials of the OP continued to postpone the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately amount was not returned which tantamounts to deficiency in services.  The complainant has also placed affidavit Ex.C2,  copy of the letter dated 21.2.2013 Ex.C2, copy of the JP Roll Ex.C3, and  copy of the pass book Ex.C4.

 

                   However, as per the contentions of the OP, the complainant used the ATM Machine on 8.2.2013 at  15:32  for withdrawal of Rs.10, 000/- and the transaction was successful. Meaning thereby the complainant had withdrawn the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- as shown in the J.P.Roll Ex.O2.

         

5.                Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the complainant on 8.02.2013 used the ATM of the OP for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- but the said amount was not  allegedly received. Though, the slip showing the transaction came out.  The said transaction dated 8.2.2013 has been reflected in the J.P.Log Ex.O2. Therefore, there is voluminous evidence on the file to show that the complainant used the ATM card for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-  from the ATM OP  and the said transaction was successful.

 

6.                The argument that   no CC footage has been placed on the file by the Ops and as such the Ops concealed the material evidence and  thus  complaint was liable to be accepted is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the order passed by the Hon,ble State Commission   in the appeal  No.227 of 2013  decided on 23.5.2013  titled  Bank of India Versus Ashok Kumar.  In the said Judgment, the Hon, ble State

Commission has held as below:

                                                          “Even  otherwise, the ATM card remains with the possession of the complainant alongwith its secret number and nobody can withdraw any amount without secret code number.”

 

               Same view  has been taken by the  Hon,ble National Commission in case State Bank of India Vs.K.K.Bhalla in revision petition no. 3182 of 2008 (2011(2) RCR 292 (NC).

                 The Hon’ble State Commission, U.T.Chandigarh has also taken the same view.

                   Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down  by the Hon’ble State Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission , U.T.Chandigarh in case Shri Sarabjit Singh Lahri Versus PNB and another, 2003(1) CPC page 425

 

                   Therefore, in view of the law laid down  in the above referred authority and in view of the fact that Pin code is a secret and the ATM is also a very personal document of the customer and without using the secret pin code and the ATM card, the transaction cannot be completed. Therefore, as per J.P.Log  Ex.OP2 which has reflected  the transaction successful, it has to be held that the complainant used the ATM card by inserting secret pin code and thus the transaction was completed.  It is pertinent to mention that as per version of the complainant, he received the receipt of the transaction itself shows that the transaction was successful and there is no reason as to why the money was not received by the complainant.

 

                         It is pertinent to mention here that there is nothing on the file  in order to infer that on the particular date the particular machine was not functioning properly.  There is no other complaint regarding irregular functioning of the said ATM machine. Therefore, when the J.P.Log has shown the transaction successful then in the absence of any contrary evidence on the file, it could not be assumed that the said amount was not withdrawn by the complainant and as such we hold that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

7.                Therefore, as a sequel to our above findings, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 20.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Rajinder Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.S.K.Malhotra Advocate for the OP.

                  

                   Arguments in part heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 20.3.2015

Announced
dated: 19.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.Rajinder Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.S.K.Malhotra Advocate for the OP.

                  

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 20.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.