BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Dharambir Singh son of Sh.Sunda Ram, R/o H.No.1548, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

State Bank of India, Sector 30, Chandigarh, Branch, through its Branch Manager, Sector 30, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Sh.K.B.Singh, Counsel for OP.       

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.      As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant is having Saving A/c No.30051389650 with OP and was issued an ATM Card bearing No.6220180144300246887 for conducting transaction. On 1.8.2010, the complainant went at the ATM machine located near red lights on the dividing road of Sectors 20-30, Chandigarh for making withdrawal of an amount. The complainant inserted his card in one of the ATM machines for making his transaction, but the machine became blackened immediately after insertion of card and everything disappeared from the screen. Thereafter, the complainant withdrew Rs.22,000/- from the second machine and it was found in the transaction receipt that some more amount of Rs.15,000/- has also been withdrawn from his account. The complainant immediately lodged a complaint with the OP as well as before the Police regarding illegal withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- from his account. When the OP failed to readdress the grievance of the complainant and did not credit Rs.15,000/- to his account, he approached the Banking Ombudsman at Sector 17, Chandigarh, who illegally and without appreciating the deficiency closed the complaint on illegal grounds that no withdrawal from ATM can be effected without use of correct card and PIN detail. According to complainant, the OP is deficient in providing ATM services to the complainant without taking security measures against hacking of ATM machine, deputation of security guard, installation of CCTV cameras and the complainant suffered loss due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence this complaint.

2.       The OP in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that non withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- is totally wrong and incorrect. The complainant used the facility of

ATM on 1.8.2010 at 21.05 for withdrawing an amount of Rs.15,000/-. On subsequent use of the ATM for withdrawal of Rs.22,000/- on the same day, the transaction was again successful. The card in question have been used in terms of JP logs carrying the timings & other details of its usages. Thus, in all fairness the OP stresses that the transaction was successful.

        It is further pleaded that the ATMs are functioning on highly advanced technology. The OP take care of all security measures such as security guard and CCTV camera. It is clarified that the security guard is supposed to give the duty at the door of the ATM and not allowed to go inside in order to keep the secret PIN number. The OP should not be held responsible for any misusages of the ATM card by the account holder himself by sharing the PIN number with somebody and/or giving the ATM card to any of its family member/friends. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.       We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OP and have also perused the record.

5.       The complainant appeared in person and submitted that on 1.8.2010, he went to the ATM machine located near red lights on the dividing road of Sections 20-30, Chandigarh for making withdrawal of the amount. The moment, the ATM card was inserted in the ATM machine, the machine became blackened immediately and everything disappeared from the screen. It was also argued that he withdrew Rs.22,000/- from the ATM machine and it was found in the transaction receipt that some more amount of Rs.15,000/- had also been withdrawn from his account. He lodged a complaint with the OP as well as before the Police for illegal withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- from his account. It was lastly submitted that the OPs failed to redress his grievance. According to the complainant, the OP is deficient in providing ATM services without taking security measures against hacking of ATM machine, deputation of security guard, installation of CCTV cameras.

6.       The learned Counsel for the OP, on the other hand, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, argued that non withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- is totally wrong and incorrect. The complainant has used the ATM on 1.8.2010 at 21.05 for withdrawing an amount of Rs.15,000/-. The nature with regard to the amount has been depicted in the JP logs, which carries the timings and other details.

7.       To succeed in the complaint, it is upon the complainant to prove the allegations contained in the complaint and also to prove that there was illegal withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- from his saving account No.30051389650, while operating ATM card bearing No. 6220180144300246887.

8.       Admittedly, the JP log book is an important document to prove whether there is illegal withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- from the account of the complainant as in the JP log book, the time and other details of usage are recorded.

9.       The OP has produced on record the JP log book – Annexure OP-1, wherein, it has been recorded that on 1.8.2010 at 21.05, the amount of Rs.15,000/- has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant.

10.      Now, it is proved on record that on 1.8.2010, the amount of Rs.15,000/- has been withdrawn by the complainant from his account bearing No. 30051389650, by operating ATM card bearing No. 6220180144300246887. The entry contained in the JP log book has also gone unrebutted and uncontroverted. More so, the JP log book is most authenticated document to prove the withdrawal of the amount from the ATM machine. Reliance placed on the case titled as Partap Singh

Mehra Vs. Branch Manager, SBI decided on 22.07.2010 by our own Hon’ble State Commission in appeal No.69/2010.  

11.      Consequently, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP as it is proved on record that the amount of Rs.15,000/- has been withdrawn by the complainant by using his ATM card No. 6220180144300246887, entry reflected in the JP log book – Annexure OP-1.

12.      As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.