Haryana

Karnal

CC/333/2014

Balbir Singh S/o Kanta Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                Complaint No.333 of 2014

                                                                Date of instt.: 19.12.2014

                                                                Date of decision: 09 .02.2016

 

Balbir Singh aged about 60 years, son of Kanta Singh resident of V & P.O. Munak District Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

 

                             Versus

1.The Manager, State Bank of India, Sector – 12, near Petrol Pump, Karnal.

2.The Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Railway Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.             

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-      Sh.Balbir Singh complainant in person.

Sh.R.K.Sharma Advocate for the Opposite Parties..

ORDER:                     

.  

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he was having  savings bank account No. 10093014272  with the State Bank of India, Sector 12, Karnal.  On 2.11.2014,at about 8:30 AM, he tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.20000/- from the ATM Machine of State Bank of Patiala, Railway road, Karnal, but the ATM Machine did not respond due to some technical fault. Then he went   away to withdraw Rs.20,000/- from the ATM Machine of other bank,  but in the mean time he came to know that already an amount of Rs.20000/- was  shown to have been withdrawn from the ATM Machine of State Bank of Patiala, Railway Road, Karnal.  He made complaint to the Manager of State Bank of Patiala, Railway Road, Karnal, but he did not pay any heed to his complaint. Therefore, he complained  to the Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 12, Karnal, but till date no action has been taken in the matter.  In this way, there was deficiency in-services and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. It has  also been submitted  that on the request of Manager, State Bank of India, Sector -12, Karnal, the Manager of State Bank of Patiala,  Railway Road, Karnal supplied CD regarding the said ATM, which is in possession of Opposite Party No.1.  He has claimed refund of Rs.20,000/- with interest thereon.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties.  Opposite Party  No.2 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the  complaint has been filed with malafide intention by making false allegations; that the complainant was not consumer of the Opposite Party  no.2 and that there was no deficiency in-services on the part of Opposite Party  no.2.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted  that  transaction no.2077 made by the complainant at 8:30AM was successful as per J.P. Log  maintained  in the ATM Machine and the amount of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant as per the said transaction.  The Opposite Party no.2 had supplied CD of the transaction to the Opposite Party no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                The Opposite Party no.1 did not file any written statement and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party no.1 made statement on 4.6.2015 adopting the written statement already filed by the Opposite Party no.2.

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 have been tendered.

 

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Sh.N.N.Mathur, Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 have been tendered.

 

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

 

7.                As  per the case of the complainant, on 2.11.2014, he tried to withdraw Rs.20,000/- from his account maintained in Opposite Party  no.1  bank,  by using his ATM card  at 8:30AM in the ATM machine of State Bank of Patiala, railway road, Karnal, but the ATM machine did not respond due to some technical fault. Lateron, he got message that amount of Rs.20, 000/- was   withdrawn from his account. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have submitted that transaction of the complainant for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- was successful as per J.P.Log    of ATM Machie  of Opposite Party No.2.

 

8.                The complainant made complaint to the Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Railway Road, Karnal on 2.11.2014 itself and the copy of the said complaint is Ex.C1.Statement of account of the complainant is lying on the file, though not exhibited by either of the parties.  Neither of the parties has disputed the correctness of the said statement of account.This Forum is to  adopt summary procedure, therefore, the said statement of account can also be taken into consideration for deciding the matter into controversy between the parties. A perusal of the statement of the account reveals that on 2.,11.2014, the comlainant made two transactions  by using his ATM card, one for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- and another for withdrawal of Rs.11,500/-. The complaiannt has raised no dispute regarding the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.11,500/-. He has only disputed the transaction of withdrawal of Rs.20,000/-. As per the copy of the J.P.Log Ex.R4 the transaction for  withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- was also successful.

 

  9.               The  Opposite Party no.1 has produced the CD regarding  the relevant transactions  which had taken place from two ATM machines installed by the Opposite Party no.2 in the same premises. The CD was played in the presence of the complainant. According to the CCTV footage of two cameras installed, in the premises where  two ATM  machines were installed, clearly show that complainant took help of two different persons while using his ATM card  for withdrawal of the amount. For the first transaction for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/-  he gave his ATM  card to a young boy to use the same in the ATM  machine. That boy used his mobile phone also while doing the transaction and pressed the push buttons of the machine frequently.  When the amount did not come out, the complainant went away after about four minutes.  He again entered the room and stayed there for about two minutes. Then that boy gave signal of his hand indicating that machine was out of order and the complainant could use another machine at some other place.  When the complainant went out of that room, that boy continued to stay there and pressed push buttons of ATM machine for some time  looking outside that somebody    was not watching him and then he took out the amount, put the same in his pocket and went away. After, some time, the complainant entered the same room and took help of another boy for using his ATM card in another ATM   machine installed in that room and that boy helped him for withdrawal of amount of Rs.11,500/-.

 

11.                 Thus, from the CCTV footage installed by Opposite Party no.2 in the premises where two ATM machines were installed,  it is emphatically clear that both the transactions of the complainant were successful but  for both transaction, he took help of two different boys. The amount of first transaction was taken away by the boy who helped the complainant for using the ATM machine, when the complainant went away. The J.P. Log of ATM machine Ex.R4 also indicates that other transactions were also made successful subsequent to the transactions made by the complainant for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/-. These facts and circumstances make it quite evident that there was no technical fault in the ATM machines installed by Opposite Party no.2  in its premises. The fault was of the complainant, who took the help of unknown persons for using his ATM card for withdrawal of the amounts. It is settled proposition of law that ATM card remains within the possession of ATM holder alongwith secret number and nobody can withdraw any amount without secret code. In this context reference with advantage  may be made to State Bank of India Vs. Ritu Lakhanpal  IV (2014) CPJ 8A(CN) (UT Chd), Bank of India Vs. Ashok Kumar,Appeal No.227 of 2013 decided on 23.5.2013  by Hon’ble  State Harryana and in  State Bank of India  Vs.K.K.Bhalla in revision   petition No.3182  of 2008. Decided by the Hon’ble National Commission.   Had the complainant not given his ATM card and not disclosed the secret number to unknown boy, the amount could not be withdrawn from his account? The bank cannot be made to suffer for the negligence on the part of the complainant himself.  Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant on account of his own fault and not due to any deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief against the Opposite parties.

 

12.               As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 09.02.2016.

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )      

   Member.