Date of filing :- 17/01/2012
Date of Order :- 11/02/2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 06 of 2012.
Kailash Pradhan, son of late Dhoba Pradhan, aged about 63(sixty three) years, resident of Janhapara, Ps. Attabira, Tahasil- Attabira, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
State Bank of India, Attabira Branch represented through the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Attabira, Po/Ps/Tasasil- Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
... .... .... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri S.S. Shukla, Advoate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri B.K.Mahapatra, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 11/02/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member .
Fact of the Complaint :-
Petitioner/Complainant is a retired teacher who has got a Savings Bank Account with ATM facility vide No-1077763027 with its Opposite Party Bank which he used to operate according to his convenience on Dt. 28/11/2011 at about 08:31 A.M. Complainant went to check out the balance and found that there was a sum Rs. 1,10,986/-(Rupees one lakh ten thousand nine hundred eighty six)only available in his account. There was a rush at that time and no security guard was there for which people tried to use their physical power to enter to the ATM booth having shouting with each other and as there was no lock facility several person entered the ATM booth at once and Complainant came out to be saved from the push. After some time he again tried to withdraw money but denied by the ATM and when he obtained a mini statement he got to know that Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only has been withdraw the same day for which he reached the day's permissible limits of withdrawals. On the same day Complainant complained the matter to the Branch and when his issue did not got attention by the authority lodged a Police complaint on Dt. 07/12/2011. Complainant also demanded the video clipping of CCTV camera of the time to check what exactly happened and who is the suspect who might have withdrawn the money but he was not supplied with the video. Later the IIC Attabira required the footage for enquiry and he was supplied with the video footage but the IIC Attabira informed to the Complainant that due to poor video clipping with insufficient light it was not possible to detect the person withdrawing the money at that time.
So the Complainant alleges the Opposite Parties not providing proper services to its consumers including him for which he lost Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only and hence this case.
Complainant has filed the following documents and relies on them to establish his case.
Xerox copy of Pass Book A/c No.1077763027.
ATM slips by ATM computer Time 08:31AM, 08:54 AM, 09:09 AM, 09:58 AM, and 10:43 AM.
Letter 07/12/2011 copy of Application.
Letter Dt. 10/12/2011.
Copy of letter by Officer-in-Charge, Attabira to the Opposite Party demanding the video footage.
Certificate by Officer-in-Charge Attabira.
Opposite Party duly served with the notice, appeared and filed their version on Dt. 18/12/2012 denying the charges of the Complainant.
Opposite Party files the following documents and relies on them to establish their cause.
Transaction slip of Balance enquiry No. 259 Dt.28/11/2011, 08:31 AM.
EJ Log of ATM No. S10A 000025012 (Disputed Transaction 3219, Dt. 28/11/2011 for withdrawal of 08:33 AM)
Transaction slip of balance enquiry in ATM S10A. No. 3273, 09:58 AM.
Correspondence regarding video clipping of the date.
Complaint Dt.30/11/2011.
Complaint letter Dt.07/12/2011.
Letter of Officer-in-Charge, Attabira for supply of video clip and acknowledgment.
Hearing completed on 09/12/2014 parties submitted their respective cause in details at the time of argument. Heard the matter referred the attached documents with due application of mind and followings points come out:-
(1) Complainant has got the Savings Bank Account vide No. 10777636027 with the Opposite Party and was using the same for conveniences having the ATM card facility included. These are admitted facts.
(2) On Dt.28/11/2011 Complainant visiting the ATM booth is also admitted fact xerox copies of the ATM slips for the dates, and various times are filed with the account.
(3) Complainant alleges that, he only checked the balance at 08:31 AM and get out of the ATM booth and soon after two minutes Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand) only is withdrawn from the Account from the same ATM booth and this transaction is fraudulent as per complainant. But Opposite Party says that the transaction was successful and made by the Complainant himself. The proof so as to who has withdrawn the money can be envisaged by the video footage of CCTV camera for that time period which was although required by the Inspector-in-Charge of Attabira, Police Station but expressed that due to insufficient light the video was of poor quality and the person withdrawing at the crucial time was not traceable. Now this point of expression is again could not be envisaged by this Forum as no party to the case insisted upon calling the video footage for perusal. Again the act happened at 08:33 of the morning and how and why poor light is explained is also a doubtful explanation as per the explanation of the Complainant the door of the ATM booth was not locked and several people entered at the same time so it seems that the door of the ATM booth was made wide open allowing entry of too many people at once as well as entry of day light into the booth and how poor lighting caused poor video quality is doubtful. The question why video clipping were not supplied to the Complainant is also not answered.
(4) Complainant checked his balance amount his ATM card swiping it and pins clicked and performing the requisites and after that whether he left the machine without its coming to normal screen is not answered because while checking of balance machine asks if the persons wants to continue with further transaction without requiring sweeping of the ATM card further and using the pin this fact remains undetermined.
(5) Opposite Party says the transaction of forty thousand being withdrawn from the ATM is successful. But as a practice already even experienced by the Forum who use ATM cards it is known that there is a limit of each withdrawal for each ATM machine set by the Banks. Some time it Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only, sometime Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only and sometime it is Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only but not Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only and under circumstance of people trying to withdraw more money than that limit machine denies transaction. So the withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/-( Rupees forty thousand)only at once is not believable even if it is tried by another person in the “Q” if he tried to use the process left half way of the transaction.
(6) Another point needed to be determined is if the next person in “Q” did this fraudulent transaction in continue with the balance checking transaction. But another transaction no is there for the fraudulent transaction whereas it should be with the same transaction under for balance inquiring and for separate transaction ATM card has to be swiped once again and pins have to the pinned once again which can not be possible as Complainant has left the place after checking his balance. These facts points the finger of doubt towards the Opposite Parties functioning.
(7) Opposite Parties also says the transaction successful and done by the Complainant perused the documents vide the copy of Pass Book pages which confirms that Complainant always have withdrawn Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only and Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only, from ATMs at several times. So on that day he withdraw Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only is also not believable and if remotely if is believed for some time that it can not be done alone but possible only with the help of bank staff those. Setting the machine its disbursing unit for transaction as to disburse Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only if has to be set likewise and after the transaction again has to be reset to its default level.
(8) Withdrawing money from ATMs is a service included with the many other services and if proper service is not provided to consumers than it certainly will amount to deficiency of service. Banks very well know that it involves affairs of money and to safeguard each transaction if they are taking security steps like installation of CCTV camera than it should be such that it can give clear vision under difficult circumstance and no fraud can happen on plea of poor video quality guarding booth with persons should be envisaged as added security. So also Banks should take steps to aware people about obeying of the Rules of one person at once in an ATM booth or should install some mechanism that if more persons earlier to the booth machine will stop until other left having the single person for transaction and reopen soon after clearing of the booth.
(9) On the point of Complainant he did the common mistake of showing hurry ever though he himself saying that there was rush at that time he should have waited for few minutes till the rush is over to avoid any problems particularly when ATM/money transactions are to be done as we all are were that ATM fraud are now a days rampant and extra precaution is required from the part if the user himself. Further point to be noted here that even if the consumer is not able to show due diligence Banks can not take plea of negligence against the consumers and plead not guilty of deficiency of service because Banks are to follow the guidelines and rules available for them mechanically on each and every reason of business.
O R D E R
Under the circumstances Opposite Parties are liable for negligence and deficiency of service.
Opposite Party Bank is directed to pay Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only along with the prevailing interest rate of the Bank starting from Dt.28/11/2011 till the date of Order i.e. Dt.11/02/2015, Opposite Party Bank also is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only to the Complainant for the sufferings of the consumer which includes litigation costs within one month of this Order, failing which all the reward amount carriers interest @ 12%(twelve percent) till actual realization.
Complaint allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Smt. Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r.
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
