Punjab

Sangrur

CC/18/2015

Balwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Aggarwal

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    18

                                                Instituted on:      08.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       12.08.2015

 

Balwinder Kaur aged about 46 years wife of late Shri Darshan Singh, resident of Village Kapial, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             State Bank of India, Branch Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             State Bank of Patiala, Branch Bhawanigarh, through its Branch Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.

For Opposite party No.1:    Shri R.K.Misra, Advocate.

For Opposite party No.2:    Shri Satpal Sharma, Advocate.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Balwinder Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant and her son Satinder Singh are having a saving bank account bearing number 31046031220 with the OP number 1 and OP number 1 also issued a debit card bearing number  6220180175900104183 to the complainant and further it was told that the ATM card can be used at any ATM machine of the parental bank.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that on 26.1.2013 the complainant with his one relative, namely, Jaswinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh went to the ATM machine of OP number 2 at Bhawanigarh and the said Jaswinder Singh at the instance of the complainant withdrew Rs.1000/- through ATM of OP number 2 as the complainant does not know how to use the ATM card.  It is further averred that the son of the complainant is working in Indian Army and he use to send the money to the complainant through the said account.  It is further averred that in the first week of February, 2013, the said Satinder Singh deposited Rs.12,000/- in the said account of the complainant.  On 8.2.2013, the complainant with the help of said relative Jaswinder Singh checked the balance through mini statement and astonished to see that an amount of Rs.39,000/- was withdrawn  on 26.1.2013. The complainant then approached the OP number 1 and brought the matter in their knowledge.  Thereafter the complainant also brought the matter into the knowledge of his son Satinder Singh, who lodged the complaint under serial number 4292776051 on 8.2.2013, but no action was taken despite lodging of complaints on 28.3.2013 and 16.3.2013.   It is further averred that thereafter OP number 1 demanded certain record from OP number 2 vide letter number BRNo.42/58 dated 16.5.2013 and OP number 1 also provided the photographs of the suspected person who might have withdrawn the amount of Rs.39,000/-. It is further averred that the ATM machine could allow the withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- only in a single transaction.  It is further averred that the complainant never withdrew an amount of Rs.39,000/- from the ATM Machine. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.39,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of withdrawal of the amount till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands  are taken up.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having a saving bank account in question with OP number 1. It is further admitted that an amount of Rs.1000/- was withdrawn on 26.1.2013 through the ATM of OP number 2 at Bhawanigarh.  It is further stated that as per the statement of account, an amount of Rs.12000/- was deposited on 4.2.2013.  It is further stated that the amount of Rs.39,000/- was also withdrawn from the account of the complainant through the ATM of OP number 2 at Bhawanigarh and this fact is evident from the photographs by the CCTV camera installed at the ATM machine of OP number 2 at Bhawanigarh.  It is further stated that the ATM card is in the possession of the complainant and she is bound to keep the safe custody of the same and if there is any lapse on her part, then the same is responsible for the same. It is further stated that maximum cash withdrawal limit is Rs.40,000/- through ATM machine.  It is further stated that it is clear from the complaint itself that the complainant used to hand over the debit card to her relatives and therefore, payment of Rs.39,000/- might have been withdrawn by the complainant. Any deficiency on the part of OP number 1 has been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer of OP, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has filed false frivolous and vexatious complaint. On merits, it is admitted that on 26.1.2013 the ATM card of the complainant was used for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1000/- vide transaction number 277 in the ATM of State Bank of Patiala, Branch Bhawanigarh. It is denied for want of knowledge that Jaswinder Singh, relative of the complainant used the ATM.  It is further averred that the ATM card of the complainant was again used for the withdrawal of the amount of Rs.39,000/- vide transaction number 278 in the ATM of State Bank of Patiala, Branch Bhawanigarh, which was also successful. It is further stated that the Op came to know the complaint of the complainant when OP number 1 demanded certain record from OP number 1 i.e. CC TV footage of the disputed transaction, JP log, cash verification report, ATM switch report and BOD reports/counters generated while replenishment of cash in ATM before and after 26.1.2013 and the same were provided to OP number 1 and also delivered to the complainant. At that time, the matter was pending before the Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh. It has been denied that in the year 2013 no person could withdraw more than Rs.15,000/- in the single transaction from ATM.  It has been denied that the amount of Rs.39,000/- was not withdrawn vide transaction number 278 from the ATM of State Bank of Patiala.  The remaining allegations levelled in the complaint against OP have been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of passbook, Ex.C-3 copy of letter dated 15.4.2013, Ex.C-4 copy of letter dated 16.5.2013, Ex.C-5 copy of EJ log, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 photographs, Ex.C-11 copy of ATM Card, Ex.C-12 affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of statement of accounts and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 copy of letter, Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.Op2/6 copies of photographs, Ex.OP2/7 copy of letter dated 16.7.2013, Ex.OP2/8 copy of email, Ex.Op2/9 to Ex.OP2/36 copies of ATM receipts, Ex.OP2/37 copy of letter dated 28.5.2014, Ex.Op2/38 copy of ATM log dated 26.1.2013, Ex.OP2/39 to Ex.OP2/45 copies of ATM receipts, Ex.OP2/46 copy of letter dated 28.5.2013, Ex.OP2/47 copy of ATM receipt dated 8.2.2103, Ex.OP2/48 copy of passbook, Ex.OP2/49 copy of letter dated 15.4.2013, Ex.OP2/50 copy of ATM receipt, Ex.OP2/51 copy of letter dated 16,5,2013, Ex.OP2/52 copy of letter dated 12.9.2012 and Ex.OP2/53 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of         the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is having a joint saving bank account with her son Satinder Singh and further it is not in dispute that the complainant is the holder of debit card/ATM card bearing number 6220180175900104183 issued by OP number 1. It is further not in dispute that the complainant along with one of his relative Shri Jaswinder Singh went to the ATM of OP number 2 at Bhawanigarh for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1000/- on 26.1.2013.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that though the complainant withdrew only an amount of Rs.1000/- only, but the amount of Rs.39,000/- has also been debited to his account, which amount the complainant never withdrew from the ATM.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the amount of Rs.39,000/- was also withdrawn  and accordingly the same was debited to the account of the complainant.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for OP number 2 that the amount of Rs.1000/- was withdrawn through ATM on 26.1.2013 vide transaction number 277 and further an amount of Rs.39,000/- was withdrawn on 26.1.2013 vide transaction number 278 at the ATM of State Bank of Patiala, Bhawanigarh branch. 

 

8.             Now, in the present case, the main point of controversy is regarding withdrawal of the amount of Rs.39,000/- which has been debited as per the EJ log supplied by OP number 2 at 11.40, whereas the complainant admitted that having operated the account at 11.36 and as per the photographs Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10, we find that the person who was present at 11.29 is also in the ATM room at 11.35 and the same person is also present at 11.37, 11.38 and 11.39. It seems that the person who operated the account at 11.36, which the complainant admits having withdrawn the same. If the same person has not withdrawn the amount then the amount was withdrawn with the help of the person who operated the ATM card at 11.36. Because of his presence in all the photographs and more over the ATM cannot be operated without the physical use of the ATM card and PIN number, which is only known to the holder of the ATM card or to his/her agent.

 

 

9.             Ex.C-2 is the Photostat copy of the passbook, which clearly reveals that on 26.1.2013 an amount of Rs.1000/- was withdrawn vide transaction number 277 and an amount of Rs.39,000/- was withdrawn vide transaction number 278 at State Bank of Patiala ATM branch Bhawanigarh.  Further Ex.C-4 is the copy of letter sent to Satinder Singh (joint holder of the account) stating that the transaction number 278 was successful.  Ex.OP-1 is the affidavit of one Subash Chander Saini, Manager (PBD)  of the OP number 1 wherein he has clearly stated that the complainant has been wrongly disputing the withdrawal of the amount of Rs.39,000/-  and the complainant has already been explained about the withdrawal of the amount of Rs.39,000/-.  Further it has also been mentioned in the affidavit Ex.OP-1 that the amount from the ATM cannot be withdrawn without its physical use and by inserting the PIN, which only remains with the complainant/ bank account holder.  Moreover, it is the own case of the complainant that she does not know how the ATM machine is operated and it is clear that she handed over the ATM card to one Jaswinder Singh and also told her personal PIN for the operation of the ATM machine for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1000/- on 26.01.2013.  Ex.Op2/2 to Ex.OP2/5 are the Photostat copies of the photographs showing that the authorised person of the complainant remained present in all the photographs. Ex.OP2/53 is the affidavit of Deputy Manager, Anumeha Sinha to support the averments in their reply.    Reliance can also be placed on the citation of West Bengal State Commission titled as The Branch Manager, State Bank of India versus Samuel Tirkey and others 2013(3) CLT 604, wherein in that case complainant alleged that he tried to withdraw cash from ATM twice, but both the attempts became unsuccessful, but the amount was wrongly debited from his account by the bank.  Plea of the complainant that had the bank produced the CCTV video footage of the material time, it would have been evident there from that the attempts did not succeed and it was held that the complainant successfully withdrawn the amount. It has been further held that it is not possible to withdraw money by an unauthorised person without ATM card and knowledge of PIN.  In the present case, it is proved case that the amount of Rs.1000/- and the amount of Rs.39000/- was withdrawn vide transaction number 277 and 278 on 26.01.2013 at the ATM of OP number 2 at Bhawanigarh.  

 

 

10.            Another contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that at the time of withdrawal of the amount from the ATM in the year 2013, the maximum limit for withdrawal of the amount from ATM was Rs.15,000/- only also fails, as the complainant has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support such a contention, more so when the OP number 1 has shown us a document wherein it has been clearly mentioned that as on 28.8.2012 the ATM limit was Rs.40,000/-.  In these circumstances, we feel that this argument of the complainant also falls flat and is not at all helpful to the case of the complainant.

 

 

11.            In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we find no case made out for any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly the complainant is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                April 12, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member