DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.135/2013

Sh. Makhan Mahto

C/o Sh. Vinay Kumar Jha

House No.33, First Floor,

Church Road, Bhogal,

New Delhi-110014                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

Branch Manager

State Bank of India

AB-3, Community Enclave,

Safdargunj, New Delhi                                             ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        : 18/03/12         Date of Order               : 23.04.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Brief facts of the complaint as stated are:

1. The complainant, Makhan Mahto is an Account Holder of State Bank of India, Safdarjung Branch hereinafter referred to as OP. The complainant on 09.06.12 went to State Bank of India at Jhanjharpur to withdraw Rs.40,000/- from the ATM using his ATM card.  The complainant was perturbed as after completing all the formalities at the ATM Vending Machine he did not receive any money.  Not being very educated he approached the security guard sitting outside the ATM and was informed to call on the toll-free number. He immediately called the toll-free number and got his complaint registered as AT-131825110909. Thereafter, he came to Delhi and approached his branch regarding the same but was again informed that he will have to go to Jhanjharpur regarding the withdrawal of Rs.40,000/-. While in Delhi on 26.06.12 the complainant got his passbook updated, wherein it showed that Rs.40,000/- was debited from his account but no transaction pertaining to the same is recorded in the passbook.

1. Later, on enquiry regarding the banking regulation the complainant got to know that as per guidelines one cannot withdraw Rs.40,000/- in one go from the ATM, therefore it was clear that  the complainant could not have withdrawn the said amount.  Photocopy of the passbook entries which highlights that Rs.40,000/- was debited from his account is marked as Mark-A for the sake of identification.  
2. Aggrieved by the circumstances above, the complainant has prayed as under:

1. Direct the OP to return  Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date when his amount was wrongfully debited i.e. 09.06./12;
2. Direct the OP to pay Rs.100/- per day as penalty against the wrongful debiting from 09/06/12;
3. Direct the OP to pay litigation expenses and damages to the tune of Rs.40,000/-.

2.  OP filed its written version and controverted the allegations made by the complainant. OP submits that the complainant went to State Bank of India Jhanjharpur on 09.06.12 to withdraw Rs.40,000/- from ATM Vending Machine. It is submitted that the said transaction was a successful transaction. OP has annexed a letter dated 11.12.12 as Annexure-A wherein it is stated by the complainant that his son- in-law went to collect cash and the complainant did not even enter the ATM premises. He forwarded the PIN number to his son-in-law to withdraw the money.

1. OP adduced the following documents as evidence to support its case:

1. Copy of letter dated 05.12.12 stating that no excess cash was found in the ATM as Annexure-B.
2. EJ log transaction report dated 09.06.12 as Annexure-C. confirming that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant.
3. Copy of ATM Account Statement of Makhan Mahto (complainant ) annexed as Annexure-F wherein the transaction pertaining to the disputed amount is recorded.
4. Copy of format of ATM, reconciliation letter which shows that there is no cash difference (excess or deficit) is annexed as Annexure-H.
5. ATM cash verification report sent by Jhanjharpur Branch dated 10.06.13 is annexed as Annexure-I.

1. OP submits that if the ATM Machine is having the capacity of Rs.1000/- currency note then withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- is possible.  It is, thus, prayed that the complaint is made on false and fabricated facts and the same is not maintainable under law, therefore it should be dismissed with cost.      

3. Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint. 

4. Complainant has filed his own evidence by way of affidavit as well as affidavit of Sh. Bharat Mahto, son-in-law of the complainant to support his case. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Neeru Kumar, Branch Manager has been filed on behalf of OP.
5.  Both the parties have filed their written arguments. 

6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and perusing the material placed on record it is noticed that there is discrepancy in the statement made by the complainant. Affidavit filed by the son-in-law of the complainant states that he alongwith ‘his father-in-law went inside’ the ATM to withdraw the money. But OP in  its evidence has placed a letter written by the complainant  on record exhibited as Ex. R1 wherein it is stated by the complainant that he gave the ATM card and told the PIN number to his son- in-law asking him to withdraw Rs.40,000/- from the ATM. Complainant further states that ‘he did not go inside’ as his father had expired and according to their custom he was not allowed to touch any metallic item therefore he gave his ATM card to his son- in-law to withdraw the cash. Contrary statements made on behalf of the complainant does not repose confidence in the complainant. We are therefore of the opinion that the complainant forwarded the ATM PIN number to his son- in-law which is against the rules laid by the RBI as it is the duty of the consumer to keep his PIN number protected and it is not to be shared with anybody.
7.  The averment made by the complainant that only Rs.15,000/- cash could be withdrawn at that point of time when the complainant  withdrew his money, therefore he could not have received Rs.40,000/- by way of one transaction. The said averment is not supported by any documentary evidence.  OP rebutting the same has submitted that if the ATM machine has Rs.1,000/- currency note then withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- is possible.
8. The complainant has placed reliance on three judgments namely, Bhadra N  Dalal Vs. Bank of India, IV (2011) CPJ 330 (NC),  State Bank of India Vs. M. Jayarami Reddy, First Appeal No.631 of 13 (AP State Commission) and PNB Vs. Rajinder Singh, First Appeal No.02 of 2012 (Punjab State Commission). The law laid down in these judgments is not applicable as those were cases of direct evidence. In all these cases the complainant had not shared his PIN number with the third person for cash withdrawals but certain amount of money was debited from their account. But in the present case the complainant did not go inside the ATM room at all instead gave his card and shared his ATM PIN number with his son-in-law to withdraw cash from the ATM, therefore the reliance placed on these judgments is misplaced.

9. It is pertinent to mention that no CCTV footage is placed on record by the OP but the same has no relevance as the complainant himself admits that he did not enter the ATM room.  Moreover OP has relied on EJ Log annexed as Annexure-C and Account Statement of the complainant from the Ledger as Annexure-G which clearly shows that the amount of Rs.40,000/-was withdrawn on 09.06.12. The balance left was Rs.28,532/- which matches exactly with the amount which should have been left as per the entry of the passbook.

10. The accounts maintained by the Bank reconcile with the withdrawal of Rs.40,000/-. It seems that the entry dated 09/06/12 of Rs.40,000/- has not been printed in the passbook of the complainant which has given him the misconceived idea to file this complaint.

11.  In view of the above discussion we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 23.04.19