West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/196/2012

Arindom Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

18 Feb 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.196/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 18/02/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. K. Jana, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mrs. S. Ghosh (Roy), Advocate.

          

Arindom Ghosh, S/o Nrayan Chandra Ghosh, Kuikota, Ashutosh Nagar, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist: Paschim Medinipur, Pin.-721101, West Bengal ……………Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

State Bank of India, the Branch Manager, State Bank Of India Medinipur, Main Branch, Branch Code-0132, Collectorate More, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721101, West Bengal………………….Op.                                                   

                

                  The case of the complainant Sri Arindom Ghosh, in short, is that he is a customer of State Bank of India having S.B. A/C with ATM facility.  It is alleged by him that on 25/11/12 in the morning when he used the ATM counter situated at Collectorate more, Medinipur Town, he was nothing paid from the said counter but found that withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand) only was shown from the ATM machine.  In fact, the complainant did not withdraw the same amount by using ATM card.  On 26/11/12 the complainant submitted an application for adjustment of the said balance but no effective response was received from the end of Op S.B.I Bank, in stead, misbehavior. With the allegation, the complainant moved before this Forum with a prayer for refund of sum of Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand) only with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) only.

               The Op S.B.I. Bank contested the case by filing written statement challenging in a word that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  The information collected from the ATM machine speaks the transaction was successful.  ATM report enclosed with the written

Contd………………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

objection which shows the details.  Thus, the Op is, in no way, liable for payment of compensation as prayed for and as such the case should be dismissed.

             Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for seeking relief against the Op ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Op-S.B.I. Bank ?
3. If the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

 

Decision with reasons:

Issue Nos.1 to 3 :

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion.  Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant himself is admittedly a bona fide customer of the Op-S.B.I. Bank and he enjoys the ATM facility.  On 25/11/12 he tried to withdraw Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand) only but the machine failed to provide the said sum rather shows balance amount after debiting Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand) only which, in fact, he did not withdraw from the said ATM  machine.  In order to support the case, it has been pointed out by the Ld. Advocate that he had immediately drawn the attention of the Branch Manager on 26/11/2012.  But no satisfactory result has been achieved by the complainant.  Rather, a report on ATM transaction is supplied to him. The function of the ATM machine has been scrutinized by the Ld. Advocate at the time of argument and certain irregularities are pointed out in the report upon which it may, according to the Ld. Advocate, be safely determined that technical error was taken place in the case of the complainant in his attempt to withdraw the aforesaid sum from the ATM.  So, for the defective and erroneous function of the ATM machine, the complainant should not be deprived of his claim.  Thus, the case should be allowed. 

             Ld. Advocate for Op S.B.I Bank made his reply that immediately after receipt of the complaint  the grievance has carefully been considered and no irregularity in the functioning of the ATM machine on that 25/11/12 was detected. So, there was no scope but to accept the ATM report. It is further argued that an electronic record is a genuine evidence and the Forum, according to the Law of Evidence, has to presume the electronic record to be official gazette which is preserved and kept in the authorized custody in the form of recognized procedure and the same is produced therefrom before the Forum.  The ATM transaction report is also pointed out by the Ld. Advocate claiming the same to be and authorized statement supporting the information appearing in the Pass Book of the consumer.  Decisions reported in the case of State Bank of India Vs. K.K.Bhalla in revision petition No.3182 of 2008 where Hon’ble National Commission was pleased

                                                                                                                                                                                   Contd……P/3

                                                          

                                                                                                     - ( 3 ) -                                                                                                                                       

to observe that Without ATM card and knowledge of the PIN no., it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorized person from an ATM.

               We have considered the case of both parties as a whole.  This is nothing but a case of alleged erroneous function of ATM machine maintained by the Op S.B.I Bank.  Admittedly, the ATM card remains in the safe custody of the holder who knows the PIN and the same cannot be used by any person beyond the knowledge of the holder.  Unless the complainant or any of his authorized agent has used the said ATM card, no such report of the ATM as produced by the Op SBI Bank, could be held showing successful withdrawal of the said sum is effected.  Under the present circumstances,   there is no stronger evidence is forth coming before us from the end of complainant so as to discard the legal evidence produced by the Op.  Thus, it is unfortunate for the complainant that we cannot accept his plea towards alleged defective function of the ATM. As a result, the case should fail.

                 Upon the discussion made hereinabove all the issues are disposed of in favour of the Op SBI Bank.

                  Hence

                            It is ordered

                                                that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost .             

Dic. & Corrected by me.  

        

         President                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.