BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.43 of 2018

Date of Instt. 29.01.2018

Date of Decision: 21.01.2019

Deepak Chaudhary, Age 54 years, S/o Late Om Parkash Chaudhary, 73, Windsor Park, Jalandhar. (Mobile No.94652-41784)

..........Complainant

Versus

1. State Bank of India, Railway Station, Jalandhar Through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. State Bank of India, Regional Business Office (BPR), Civil Lines, Jalandhar Through its Asstt. General Manager/Authorized Representative.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in Person.

Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. Briefly case of the complainant is that the complainant is subscriber of Account No.20073154774 with OP No.1. That on 30.10.2017, complainant went to ATM of OP No.1, located at New Grain Market, Jalandhar to withdraw money. The complainant inserted his ATM Card in ATM machine to withdraw Rs.10,000/-, which amount successfully came out from ATM machine at first time. Then again on same date 30.10.2017, complainant inserted his ATM Card in ATM Machine located at SBI, New Grain Market, Jalandhar to withdraw Rs.10,000/-, which amount neither came out from ATM Machine nor received by the complainant. At 03:26 PM on 30.10.2017, the complainant received message on his mobile phone that Rs.10,000/- withdrawn at SBI ATM. After 2 minutes i.e. at 03:28 PM dated 30.10.2017, the complainant received message on his mobile phone that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- reverted to his account, but after some time, the complainant again received message on his mobile phone that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- withdrawn cash from ATM and debited from the complainant's account.

2. That on 31.10.2017, the complainant gave an application to OP No.1 intimating for non-receipt of amount of Rs.10,000/- from SBI ATM, located at New Grain Market, Jalandhar and further requested to revert this amount to the account of the complainant. The OP No.1 told the complainant that the cash amount, which did not dispense from ATM will be credited to complainant's account within a week. On the same date, OP No.1 gave phone call to the customer care and lodged a complaint for non-receipt of said amount by the complainant. The OP No.1 assured the complainant that the said amount will be reverted to complainant's account within 7 days. After 7 days, the complainant went to OP No.1 to know for the reverse of the said amount, the OP No.1 again told the complainant that said amount might be reverted in next 7 days. After 14 days, when the complainant again went to OP No.1 to know for the revert of said amount, the OP No.1 told the complainant that his complaint has been closed. Again on the request of the complainant, the complaint of the complainant was restored. The OP No.1 directed the complainant to come after 14 days. When after 14 days the complainant went to know for the revert of his money, the OP No.1 told the complainant that the said compliant has been filed. Thereafter, the complainant on 12.12.2017 sent an application to the OP No.2 through Speed Post, but neither any action was taken nor the said amount reverted back to the account of the complainant and again on 18.12.2017, the complainant gave an application to OP No.2, but no action was taken by the OP, then again on 17.01.2018, complainant gave an application to OP No.2, but no fruitful result came out from the said intimation and ultimately, the complainant aggrieved from the negligence and deficiency in service of the OPs and ultimately, filed the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to revert Rs.10,000/- to the account of the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs.3300/- on account of litigation cost and further to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and any other relief, which this Forum deem fit may also be given to the complainant.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed joint reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint, in view of the fact that the transaction No.6256 dated 30.10.2017 for Rs.10,000/- disputed by him is a successful transaction and the amount has been received by the complainant regarding the said transaction and further averred that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs and that being so the complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs and further submitted that without applying the pin number with the ATM Card, no transaction in the ATM can be allowed. The complainant has himself operated the ATM and has withdrawn the amount from the ATM by applying his PIN Number along with the ATM Debit Card and as such, has no right whatsoever to allege that the amount of Rs.10,000/- withdrawn through the ATM Card has not been received by him, especially in view of the fact that the disputed transaction is successful as per the record maintained by the OPs in respect of the ATM in question from where the amount was withdrawn. Moreover, no excess cash was found in the said ATM Machine on the day of disputed transaction i.e. 30.10.2017. On merits, the averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and further submitted that the CCTV footage does not show in regard to non-receipt of amount of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the claim of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Varinder Kumar, Branch Manager of the OP as Ex.OP1-2/A along with some documents Ex.OP1-2/1 to Ex. OP1-2/3 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. We have scanned the case of the complainant very carefully and find that the complainant has made allegations that on 30.10.2017 at the second occasion, he inserted his ATM Card in ATM Machine, but amount was not came out from the ATM Machine and regarding that he received messages from the bank on his mobile phone. Apart from that the complainant also submitted four applications to the OPs, whereby made complaint in regard to non-withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM Machine, these applications are Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6, but no reply of that application has been given by the OPs, which shows that there is some hanky-panky on the part of OPs, otherwise as per law, it is required to give reply of the written complaint, but in this case, the OPs did not follow the law, which create a doubt upon the functioning of the OP. Not so, the complainant also took a plea in Para No.8 of the complaint that on 17.01.2018, he submitted an application to OP No.2 and also intimated to Sh. Varinder Kamar, Branch Manager, who had examined the CCTV Footage, wherein clearly visible that no money had been received by the complainant, when the complainant has specifically a plea that the CCTV Footage does not show to withdraw the money to the complainant, but no specific reply has been given by the OPs of the said Para No.8 rather the OP has gave evasive reply, no specific reply was given whether the said Branch Manager has shown the CCTV Footage to the complainant or not. So, from this angle, it is also clearly established that there is a negligence and deficiency on the part of the OPs and they have only created a ground that the said disputed transaction was successful and placed on the file a certificate Ex.OP1-2/A regarding showing successive transaction, but this certificate does not show the time at which time the said amount was withdrawn by the complainant from the ATM Machine, no doubt, the complainant himself admitted that the first amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by him at 03:25 PM and the said transaction is obviously successive one, but the second attempt of the complainant for withdrawing the same amount from the ATM Machine at 03:26 PM, but the amount does not come out, regarding that the message is shown on the document Ex.C-2 as message No.2 and similarly, the said amount has been shown reverted back to the account of the complainant, vide message No.3 and again it has been shown that the said amount has been withdrawn and ultimately, the complainant approached to the OP on the basis of the said messages, but the OPs did not bother and as such, we are of the considered opinion that there is a negligence on the part of the OPs as well as deficiency in service, therefore, complaint of the complainant succeeds and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to revert back the disputed amount of Rs.10,000/- in the bank account of the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Karnail Singh

21.01.2019 Member President