Haryana

Gurgaon

cc/274/2014

Rajendra Prasad Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                     Consumer Complaint No.274 of 2014                                                                                                                                                 Date of Institution: 13.08.2014                                                                                                                                                          Date of Decision: 19.05.2016

Rajendra Prasad Sahoo s/o Sh. Naba Kishore Sahoo aged 37 years, Permanent resident of Village Mulkaida, P.O. Anantapur P.S.Soro District Balasore, Orissa and presently residing at H.No.213/195, Block-G Street No.1, Ekta Wali Gali, Rajendra Park, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

 

                                                Versus

 

State Bank of India through its Branch Manager situated at P.O.Soro District Balasore, Orissa-756045.

 

ICICI Bank through its Branch Manager situated at Sector-4, Main Market Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

 

  ..Opposite parties

                                                                            

                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.

                    SHRI SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER

 

Present:        Complainant in person

                    OP-1 exparte

                    Shri Ajay Singh, Adv for the OP-2.

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.       

 

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is operating a Bank A/c No.111248854278 with OP-1. On 29.06.2004 he tried to withdraw Rs.1000/-from ATM Machine of ICICI Bank Rajendra Park, Gurgaon but he did not receive the amount. Then he visited ATM Machine of Bank of Baroda at Rajendra Park, Gurgaon on 29.06.2014 at 6.25 for withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- and he received the same  but a sum of Rs.10,000/- has wrongly been shown as debited by showing the balance as Rs.85,292/- . He requested the opposite parties to credit the amount of Rs.10,000/- in his account but of no use.

2                 OP1 in its written reply has alleged that infact the complainant has withdrawn Rs.10,000/-successfully as has been conveyed by the Bank from whose ATM the withdrawal was made. Infact, he had already withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from ATM of ICICI Bank and to make his case foolproof he withdrew Rs.1000/- from the ATM of Bank of Baroda.

3                 OP-2 in its written reply has alleged that as per records available with the OP-2 the complainant has done a successful transaction and this fact is clearly validated from EJ report that the complainant had done successful transaction at 18:11:43 vide transaction ref no.449533.

4                 We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP-1 & OP-2 and perused the record available on file.

5                 After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on file and the arguments advanced by the parties it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that he did not receive the amount of Rs.10000/- from the ATM Machine of the OP-2 though Rs.10000/- has been shown as deducted from his account wrongly and illegally whereas OPs have denied the above said allegation of the complainant and alleged that the above said transaction of Rs.10000/- was successful transaction and produced document Annexure A showing the transaction successful.

6        Therefore, as per document EJ report Annexure A the above said transaction has been shown as successful. There is nothing on the file on behalf of the complainant to rebut the above said document.

7        Hon,ble State Commission  in the Appeal  No.227 of 2013  decided on 23.5.2013  titled Bank of India Versus Ashok Kumar has held as below:

“Even  otherwise, the ATM card remains with the possession of the complainant along with its secret number and nobody can withdraw any amount without secret code number.”

Same view  has been taken by the  Hon,ble National Commission in case State Bank of India Vs.K.K.Bhalla in Revision Petition no. 3182 of 2008 (2011(2) RCR 292 (NC).

Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down  by the Hon’ble State Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission , U.T.Chandigarh in case Shri Sarabjit Singh Lahri Versus PNB and another, 2003(1) CPC page 425.

Reliance has also been placed on the case laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case State Bank of India Vs Om Prakash Saini, 2013 (2) CPC, 149.

8.                 Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above referred authority and in view of the fact that Pin code is a secret and the ATM is also a very personal document of the customer and without using the secret pin code and the ATM card, the transaction cannot be completed. Therefore, as per Ann A which has reflected  the transaction successful, it has to be held that the transaction was completed.   

                   It is pertinent to mention here that there is nothing on the file in order to infer that on the particular date the particular machine was not functioning properly.  There is no other complaint regarding irregular functioning of the said ATM machine. However, OP has also produced the certificate  which shows that there was no excess cash reported.  Therefore, when the Annexure A  has shown the transaction successful then in the absence of any contrary evidence on the file, it could not be assumed that the said amount was not withdrawn by the complainant and as such we hold that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

9.       Therefore, as a sequel to our above findings, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced                                                                                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

19.05.2016                                                                                                                                President,

                                                                                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

 

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member