Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1050/2012

Lilawati - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

               CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CASE NO-1050/12
 

Smt. Lilawati

W/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore,

R/o H-19-E, Shakarpur Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092.

Complainant

Vs

1. State Bank of Hydrabad,

Branch At. Vikas Marg Laxmi Nagar,

•  

 

2. State Bank of India,

Salempur, Dist-Deoria,

East UP-Code-1146.

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                   DATE OF ADMISSION-10/01/2013

                                                                                  DATE OF ORDER       -03/06/2015

SH. SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER

The complainant in this case has claimed that she is having a Saving Account No.10760652661 in the State Bank of India and was issued a ATM Card vide Debit Card No.6220180114600019789 (herein after referred to as ATM Debit Card). On 27/05/2012, the complainant visited the ATM of respondent No.1 at Vikas Marg Laxmi Nagar for checking the balance at ATM ID No.S10A200839002 vide TXN.7354, the balance amount was showing Rs.28,640/-, thereafter, debit card was processed for transferring the amount of Rs.7,000/- but machine showed the message “SORRY UNABLE TO PROCESS”. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that she was shocked to know that there is a balance sum of Rs.8,640/- only and Rs.20,000/- has been deducted from the account of the complainant. It is alleged that she came to know about the transaction of Rs.20,000/- which was made from the another ATM with ATM ID No.S10A200839001. She in the complaint has denied that she ever processed any transaction from this ATM. It is allegations that she made complaints to various authorities and  as no relief was offered by OP-1 & OP-2 therefore she is before this Forum, seeking refund of Rs.20,000/- plus Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation and Rs.5,000/- as compensation.

            Notice of complaint was issued to the Respondents and respondent No.1 has filed its written statement.

            Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.

            The OP-1 has also filed the documentary evidence in the Forum i.e. EJ Logs which are placed on record as Annexure-A and the order passed by the OMBUDSMEN on the complaint is placed at as Annexure-B. OP-1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. On merits it has been stated in the reply that the sum of Rs.20,000/- was transected and processed by the complainant at ATM ID No. S10A200839001 and hence OP-1 has no liability.

            We have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record.

            The complainant Smt. Lilawati in her complaint as well as notice given prior to filing the complaint stated that she has visited and processed the ATM where as the Police report placed on record by the complainant shows that her son Sh.Om Prakash, who is also the authorized agent also to pursue this complaint, in fact operated the ATM Card of his Mother on 27/05/2012. OP has taken objection to illegal and unauthorized use of the ATM Card by her son therefore it is clear that the complainant did not use the ATM Card herself.

 OP-1 has placed on record the EJ Logs. First one is dated 27/05/2012 processed at ATM ID No.S10A200839002 at 9.36, according to which “the machine was unable to process the request”. The next EJ Log is of the same ATM ID processed on 27/05/2012 at 9.42 which also shows the remarks “SORRY UNABLE TO PROCESS”. The third EJ Log is dated 27/05/2012 at ATM ID S10A200839001 at 9.37 which shows that vide transaction No.6866 sum of Rs.20,000/- has been withdrawn from card No. 6220180114600019789 which is the ATM Debit Card of the complainant. There is no evidence in rebuttal by the complainant to these Logs. In view of the EJ Logs the transaction with drawing Rs.20,000/- transaction has taken place and the complaint is devoid of any merits due to deficiency in service. The complaint deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules  

 

 

 

(SUBHASH GUPTA)             (POONAM MALHOTRA)                 (N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                                 MEMBER                              MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT