DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.652/2012

Ravi Shankar

207/42B, Prakash Mohalla, Garhi

Near Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi-110065

….Complainant

Versus

State Bank of India

 Ring Road Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024

State Bank of  Bikaner & Jaipur

Company Registered Office Address:

Near Park Hotel, Kolkata, West Bengal-700016.

State Bank of  Hyderabad

Company Registered Office Address:

173, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700028

West Bengal

        ….Opposite Parties

 Date of Institution    :   05.12.2012    

 Date of Order            :  27.04.2023    

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.      Complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission and prayed for direction to OP to apologize for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant; to make up for the mistake by refunding the full ticket amount to the Complainant. Additionally, it is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards physical strain, mental agony and Rs. 1000/- towards the cost of litigation.

 2.     It is stated that the Complainant was having  a Saving account since November, 2019 with State Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as OP-1. On 07.08.2012 an unauthorized withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was made twice from an ATM of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in Kolkata amounting to total of Rs 40,000/ on the same date. On 08.08.2012 another unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 7,000/- was made from another ATM of State Bank of Hyderabad in Kolkata.

3.      It is next stated that Complainant had deposited Rs. 1,59,500/- in cash (five transactions of Rs. 30,000/- each and another transaction of Rs. 9,500/-) through ATM Card with his SBI Branch on 08.08.2012. It is while depositing the money through ATM that the Complainant got to know about the unauthorized withdrawals from the deposit slip.

4.      Upon having knowledge of the unauthorized withdrawal Complainant contacted the Bank and filed an application with OP-1 on 11.09.2012 which was rejected with the remarks that withdrawals were actually made through the ATM of Complainant’s card. Complainant was appalled at the apathetic and apparently deceitful attitude of OP-1 as the Complainant maintains that the ATM card was in his possession at Delhi so there is no possibility of withdrawal from his ATM card at Kolkata.

5.      Alleging deficiency in service on part of OP, Complainant  approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

6.      OP-1 has filed the written version stating inter alia that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the Complainant’s amount was withdrawn from the ATMs of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in Kolkata and State Bank of Hyderabad in Kolkata and not from the ATM of OP-1. The said State Banks from where the withdrawal has taken place has not been impleaded as a party.

7.      It is next stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed because as per E Journal Log generated by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and State Bank of Hyderabad the transaction no. 8945 at 21:44 dated 07.08.2012, transaction no. 8946 at 21:45 dated 07.08.2012 and transaction no. 3976 at 07:48 dated 08.08.2012 were successful and complete. Complainant has withdrawn the total amount of Rs. 47,000/- successfully from ATM ID No. S10A100604001 and S10A200806001. True copy of E Journal Log is annexed as annexure OP-1.

8.      It is further stated that Complaint is liable to be dismissed because OP-1 received the letters dated 08.08.2012 of the Complainant on 19.11.2012 with respect to withdrawal of Rs. 47,000/- from two ATMs in Kolkata. Thereafter OP-1 vide its letter dated 07.02.2013 took up the matter with the State Banks in Kolkata wherein on 26.02.2013, OP-1 was informed that they have only 90  days CCTV footage available with them.

9.      It is next stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed because the ATM Card was in the possession of the Complainant , he had exclusive knowledge of the PIN and without use of the card and the right PIN, withdrawal could not have been made. As per terms & conditions of the ATM card, OP-1 is not liable for any unauthorized use of card and responsibility is fully that of the card holder.   

10.    In view of the aforesaid facts it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

11.    An application was filed on behalf of OP-1 for impleadment of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Kolkata and State Bank of Hyderabad , Kolkata . Thereafter the complaint was amended and the above stated OPs were impleaded as OP-2 & OP-3 respectively.

12.    OP-2 filed its reply stating inter alia that as per the Journal Print/Electronic Journal Print Log the transactions of Rs. 20,000/- each were successful transaction. As per the branch ATM, replenishment cum cash verification, records that ‘no excess cash was found’. Copy of EJ/JP Log was made available to the Complainant through OP-1. It is further stated that as no cause of action qua OP-2 has arisen therefore the complaint be dismissed with compensatory costs.

13.    Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the Complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Evidence by way of affidavit is filed on behalf of the parties. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the Complainant and OP-1.  Submissions made by the complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused.

14.    Perusal of the E-Journal Log of OP-2 is clear as regards the withdrawal of cash twice on 07.08.2012 from the ATM and no extra cash was found as per the EJ Log. Complainant has annexed the statement of Saving bank account  which reflects two withdrawals of 20,000/- each on 07.08.2012 from the ATM of OP-2 and one withdrawal of Rs. 7,000/- on 08.08.2012 from the ATM of OP-3 bank.

15.    There is no denying the fact that money was withdrawn from Complainant’s account ,the question here is -who withdrew the money ? It is seen from the records that the complaint regarding fraudulent transaction was filed on 07.09.2012 for the transaction which took place on 07.08.2012. No action was taken by OP-1 regarding the complaint. Rather OP-1 took up the matter with OP-2 & OP-3 on 07.02.2013 that is after five month . A reply to the said letter was received   from OP-2 vide letter dated 26.02.2013 wherein it was informed to OP-1 that OP-2 has the CCTV footage of only last 90 days.

16.    We find OP-1 to be negligent  as OP-1 took five months to inquire from OP-2 regarding the CCTV footage. Had OP-1 acted immediately upon receiving the complaint from the Complainant on 07.09.2012, OP-1 could have obtained the CCTV footage which would have made clear whether it was the Complainant or somebody else who had withdrawn the said amount.  In the absence of the CCTV footage, we believe the Complainant’s version to be true that the Complainant with his card was in Delhi when the unauthorized withdrawal took place .

17.    In view of discussion above we direct  OP-1 to refund Rs. 47,000/-within three months from the receipt of order failing which OP-1 shall pay Rs. 47,000/- @ 6% p.a. from the date of withdrawal of the said sum till realization.

  File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.