1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 17.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 885 of 2013 in which order dated 10.07.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Nand Nagri (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 368 of 2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum,  Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent before the State Commission and OP before the District Forum.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent on 14.08.2017.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 27.11.2018 ( Petitioner ) and 16.08.2023 ( Respondent) respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that Complainant was having a Saving Bank Account with the OP and was also having an ATM card.  It is the case of the complainant that on 03.08.2011, someone had withdrawn a sum of Rs.25,000/- from his account.  He contacted the Branch Manager of the OP who told him that amount was withdrawn by him.  It is further his case that he had never withdrawn the said amount and the two ATMs machine were installed in the said Branch of the OP wherein a slip was pasted on the machine that over Rs.10,000/- could not be withdrawn at a time.  The complainant made a police report to the SHO Seema Puri but no action was taken.  Further, in response to RTI application, it was informed by the Headquarter of the OP that from TXN No. 8913, only Rs.20,000/- could be withdrawn at one time.  Branch Manager of the OP assured the complainant number of times  for refund but the amount was not refunded.  Being aggrieved, the complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 10.07.2013 dismissed the complaint of the Complainant.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 17.03.2017, dismissed the appeal of the Complainant. Therefore, the Petitioner is before us now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 17.03.2017 of the State Commission mainly on the following grounds:

1. The Fora below ignored the fact that from the ATM machine, only Rs.20,000/- can be withdrawn in single transaction which is confirmed by respondent through RTI reply.  Further, respondent has not clearly investigated the issue of fraudulent transaction despite several requests from the Petitioner which can be easily proved by verifying the CCTV footage installed at ATM premise.  The documents filed by the respondent do not provide the said transactions as was held by the State Commission.

2. Both the fora below failed to found that Petitioner has not placed any evidence on record to substantiate the fact that machine has not dispensed Rs.25,000/- in one go.  However, in RTI reply, respondent admitted that only Rs.20,000/- can be disbursed from the ATM which was used by the Petitioner.
3. The Fora below failed to appreciate that slip pasted on the ATM machine confirms the contention of the Petitioner that Rs.25,000/- cannot be withdrawn from the said ATM.

4. The State Commission failed to appreciate that details of statement filed by the respondent  i.e. the card details which the respondent referred was incorrect and also the card number mentioned in the said statement is not of the Petitioner and details on which the respondent is claiming that transaction was held are based on wrong premises.

5. ATM log filed by the respondent in which the date of transaction is shown as 08.03.2011 is incorrect.  Respondent till date failed to submit the correct details of the said transaction.

6. State Commission failed to consider that respondent has not filed any authentic evidence i.e Circular / Executive order, which reflects that Rs.25000/- can be deducted from the said account and what is the limit  of withdrawal of the card used by the Petitioner.

6.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1     Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that transaction details revealed that the money was withdrawn from the other ATM machine present in the ATM counter and also the transaction time mentioned was the same time when the complainant had used the ATM machine to check his statement on the other machine, which is not possible.  It is further argued that notice was pasted on the ATM machine that a person cannot withdraw more than Rs.10,000/- and hence it was not possible for the complainant to have withdrawn the money.  Learned counsel further averred that respondent has not given any concrete reply to the RTI filed by the Petitioner but on appeal, the respondent informed that from the machine, only Rs.20,000/- can be withdrawn and 40 notes can be withdrawn.   Further, the complainant vide several letters approached various authorities including Banking Lokpal, Banking Ombudsman, customer care of the respondent, RBI to redress his grievance but no satisfactory response was received from the said authorities.    Lastly, it is argued that circular filed by the respondent does not relate to the card used by the Petitioner. 

6.2     Learned counsel for the respondent argued that Petitioner was only aware of the Pin Identification Number and transaction no. 8913 was successful and complete as the response code is shown as ‘000’ and no excess cash was found in the said ATM of respondent.  Further, Petitioner has admitted the transaction of taking out of mini statement vide transaction no. 5062 and denying another transaction no. 8913 carried out from ATM ( in the same place) for withdrawing amount of  Rs.25,000/- with malafide intention.  Nobody could have withdrawn the amount when ATM card and PIN were in possession and known to the Petitioner only. Further, it is admitted by the Petitioner that there were two ATMs at the same place.

6.3.    Learned counsel further argued that ATM log clearly proves that amount of Rs.25000/- had  been withdrawn from the ATM machine in question from the account of the complainant and the police complaint was made by the complainant on 07.09.2011 after more than one month.  It is further averred that for smooth functioning of ATM, it is advised to the customers to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- in one attempt but that does not  infer that concern ATM could dispense only Rs.10,000/- on each attempt. 

7.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner herein.  District Forum dismissed the complaint by holding that respondent – OP had proved by way of documents that amount was withdrawn by using card of the Petitioner / complainant, whereas no evidence was filed by the complainant to substantiate his case.  Case of the Petitioner basically hinges on his argument that the Bank had put up notice / circular on the machine that more than Rs.10,000/- cannot be withdrawn at one time and hence, he could not have withdrawn Rs.25,000/- from ATM. State Commission taking note of the fact that both the card and the ATM PIN was in possession of the Complainant, observed that no one else could have withdrawn the money under the transaction in question. In this regard, extract of relevant para of order of the State Commission is reproduced below :

“12.     It may be mentioned that alongwith the complaint, the appellant/complainant has annexed a copy of the mini statement, which shows that on the relevant date i.e. 03.08.2011, the appellant/complainant at 12.03 hours from first ATM Machine of Seemapuri Branch bearing ID No.S10A004839001 had used his ATM Card vide transaction ID No.5062 by using PIN number which was only known to the appellant/complainant had taken out the mini statement. Since this document is in possession of the appellant/complainant and has been annexed with the complaint it means that the first ATM machine was used by him at 12.03 hours. Appellant/complainant is disputing transaction No.8913, which was done on the same date at 12.04 hours from second ATM Machine bearing ID No.S10G004839002 installed in the same branch. It is admitted position that the card remained in the possession of the appellant/complainant. It is not the case of the appellant/complainant that he had lost or misplaced the same. PIN number of the ATM also remained in his exclusive knowledge. Further the transaction in question has been proved by the respondent/OP by filing documents i.e. copy of the ATM log, which clearly shows that the amount of Rs.25,000/- had been withdrawn from the ATM ID No.S10G004839002 (ATM machine in question) from branch No.4839 (Seemapuri Branch of respondent/OP) at 12.04.22 hours. The second document which is a certified copy of log of ATM ID No.S10G004839002 (1^st machine) for July, Aug., Sep. 2011 for TXN of Rs.25,000/- which also proves that an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been withdrawn through ATM Card No.6220180483900101245 from Account No.00000030838135535 (saving bank account of the appellant/complainant) at 12.04.22 hours on 03.08.2011. The aforesaid documents prove the case of the respondent/OP. the findings given by Ld. District Forum are based on evidence on record.”

8        OP-Bank on the other hand had contended that notice pasted on the machine that more than Rs.10,000/- cannot be withdrawn was more in the nature of the advisory put for safety purpose so that amount remains available for other customers. They have also placed on record certified copy of ATM machine transactions which shows that Rs.25,000/- has been withdrawn by different customers by using their respective ATM from the said machine on different dates.  Considering these facts, State Commission observed that it cannot be said that machine cannot dispense Rs.25,000/- in one go.  In this regard, extract of relevant para of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below :

13.       The stand of the appellant/complainant that the slip was pasted on the machine that over Rs.10,000/- could not be withdrawn is no ground to accept the case of the appellant/complainant. According to the stand of respondent/OP, the same was of advisory in nature and was put for safety purpose so that amount remains available for other customers also. Further, the certified copy of slip of first ATM machine referred above also shows that Rs.25,000/- has been withdrawn by different customers by using their respective ATM from the aforescaid machine on different dates. In view of above discussion, it cannot be said that the machine cannot dispense Rs.25,000/- in one go. No evidence is also placed on record by appellant/complainant to substantiate the aforesaid contention.

                                    xxxx

15.       In the present case also the appellant/complainant has not disputed that the ATM Card or PIN did not remain in his self custody/knowledge. Also on the same date just 1-2 minutes before the disputed transaction, he has taken out the mini statement from 1^st ATM machine of Seemapuri Branch of respondent/OP Bank. In these circumstances the appellant/complainant can’t allege unauthorized use of his card.

9.       State Commission has given a well reasoned order and we do not find any reason to interfere with its findings.   It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments[1] that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.   In view of the foregoing, we find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld.  Accordingly, RP is dismissed.

10.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.