The instant case is that the complainant has a Savings Bank Account being No.31131764999 with the OP/State Bank of India having facility of enjoying ATM card. On 21.12.2010 the complainant went to ATM counter of State Bank of India situated at Karnojora to enquire the balance and came to know that a sum of Rs. 22,516/- are in his savings account at 13.45 hrs. There after he went to Raiganj and trying to withdraw some money at 14:33 hrs. 14:35 hrs. and 14:37 hrs. at ATM Counter Raiganj on the same day but the machine vide response code no. 094 informed ‘Sorry unable to process’. The complainant immediately contacted with O.P./ banker and one of the officer advised him to come next day and withdraw the money. Accordingly the complainant came on the next day , i.e., 22.12.2010 and enquired the balance and found a sum of Rs 16/- was available in the said account. Being astonished the complainant further contacted with the O.P./ banker and filed petition stating the matter on the same day and O.P. banker received the same by putting seal and signature and advised the complainant to bring passbook after 3 /4 days. After updating the passbook, the O.P./ banker told the complainant that they had nothing to do as the transactions were successfully done. There after, the complainant issued Lawyer’s notice but OP did not reply. Due to such missing of the said amount of Rs.22,500/- it caused mental pain, harassment and inaction on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency of service, hence, this case for proper relief.
The OP contested the case by putting Written Version denying each and every allegation as made. Their specific defence is that the OP received a complaint on 22.12.2010 and after making enquiry it could be ascertained as recorded in EJ as to that a successful operation was done in the ATM at 14.16 p.m. and 14.17 p.m. from the ATM counter of Bidhan Manch at Raiganj. The OP took a best effort to help the complaint lodged by the complainant to the appropriate Authority and it was found that the transaction dated 21.12.10 was successful and after receiving Lawyer’s notice the O.P. showed the video footages of the disputed transactions and after being satisfied the complainant left the bank premises. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and as such the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Decision with reasons
The complainant has submitted evidence on affidavit, letter dated 22.12.10, lawyer’s notice with AD, original pass book and several ATM slips. The complainant has also filed one decision reported (2009)1WBLR (CPJ) 859 W.B. State Commission. On the other hand, O.P. has also filed written note on argument, copy of ATM manual (in part) and EJ/ bank statement through ATM statement. From the EJ statement it is found that the transactions were successfully done in two occasions vide TXN No. 2046 and TXN No. 2047 at 14:16 hrs. and 14:17 hrs from Raiganj (Bidhan Manch) ATM counter on 21.12.10 and these transactions were duly reflected in savings pass book of the complainant. We know bank evolved elaborate procedure and it does not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorized person from ATM without ATM card and knowledge of PIN number. In case the ATM card stolen or the PIN No. had become known to persons other than ATM card holder then the CCTV coverage could have held in identifying the persons who had fraudulently used the card. But in this case the complainant categorically stated that nobody used the card other than himself. In this regard reliance has been placed upon a decision reported in (2009)1WBLR (CPJ) 859 W.B. State Commission in the case of Axis Bank Ltd. Vs Lal Jha by the complainant. The fact of the case as of us is not similar to that of the case.
In this case complainant never visited or used his ATM card on the alleged machine, i.e.; Raiganj Bidhan Manch ATM counter. We do not find any correspondences made with O.P. /banker that the complainant asked to show him CCTV/ vedio footage neither in his first intimation letter nor his lawyer’s notice. So, question of preserving the video footage by O.P. does not arise as it is specifically mentioned in ATM manual under 03.02 Video Surveillance system ‘In case of any dispute on transactions, the recorded cassette is placed internally to ascertain facts and take appropriate decision in the matter’. On the other hand, video footage of ATM counter should be preserved for only six months from the date of transaction as per RBI direction but this case was filed after six month of occurrence of alleged transaction where complainant mentioned video footage is necessary for proper verification. So, OP rightly handled the case from the very beginning of complaint lodged by the complainant.
Moreover, we go through the ATM slips bearing TXN no. 6802 at 14:33 hrs, TXN no. 6803 at 14:35 hrs and TXN no. 6805 at 14:37 hrs. with same response code 094 of Raiganj ATM counter of O.P./ banker as submitted by the complainant, it is crystal clear that there was another transaction took place in between 14:35 hrs to 14:37 hrs. and that TXN no. must be 6804 and we can presumed it could be happened at 14:36 hrs. So, we can easily say that within one minute gap two transactions can take place. From the above slips we have seen that the very particular machine was unabled to process on particular point of time it does not mean all other machines of the OP were responded in same manner. It must vary machine to machine. On careful scrutiny of the journal print as submitted by the OP it reveals that all the transactions as made therein on 21.12.10 were declared as successful in relation to transaction No.2045 to 2048. From the journal print we do not find that the machine was malfunctioning/ technically unsound at the relevant point of time. It is admitted fact that money can not come out from ATM without punching ATM card and inserting four digit secret PIN number properly. But in this case the complainant did not visit the counter at all but money was deducted from that alleged machine in two occasions. So, it creates enough doubt in our mind that the complainant is suppressing the true fact. So, the case of the complainant is not at all believable and genuine one and in order to gain illegally such case has been furnished with such allegation which is not at all entertainable.
The OP has placed the journal print/ bank statement through ATM to substantiate their defence about successful transaction as operated on the date of occurrence and when the complainant has suppressed the material fact of non-attending the alleged ATM counter on 21.12.10 it creates a doubt and it is not at all convincing one.
Under this facts and circumstances, in the light of the reasoning as assigned hereinbefore this Forum is of the view that complainant has failed to establish his case rather the defence case do carry much weight in this regard for which no case of deficiency of service as provided under Section 2(1)(g) & (o) has been established.
In the result, the case of the complainant fails.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case bearing No. 32/2011 is dismissed on contest against the OP but without any cost.
Let Xerox copies of this Judgment and Order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
