Haryana

Ambala

CC/122/2016

Sham Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

27 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint No.122/16.

                                                          Date of Instt.02.03.2016.

                                                          Date of Decision: 27.12.2017.

 

Sham Kumar son of Sh.Desh Raj aged about 50 years resident of House No.206, Sunder Nagar Colony, Naraingarh, Ambala City, (Near Mandaur).

 

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                             Vs.

 

1. State Bank of India, Haryana Motor Market Branch, G.T.Road, Ambala City- Haryana.
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce, village Handesra Branch, District SAS Nagar-Mohali-Punjab.

                   ….Opposite parties.

          Complaint U/s 12 of CP Act, 1986

 

 BEFORE: SH. D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR,MEMBER

 

Argued By: Complainant in person.

                   Sh.H.S.Garg, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   Sh.R.K.Goel, Adv. for OP No.2.

ORDER

 

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties with the averments that the complainant is having a saving account bearing No.30276244870 with Op No.1 and is also having an ATM facility on that number. On 07.04.2015 the complainant visited ATM branch of OP No.2 and withdrew Rs.25,000/- (Rs.10,000+Rs.10,000+Rs.5,000) but unfortunately not a single paisa/rupee came out from the machine, however, the complainant received SMS regarding withdrawal of the amount from bank account. The complainant waited for half an hour and further reported the matter to OP No.2. The security guard checked the machine and thereafter ATM machine disbursed Rs.1,000/- after waiting for a long time. After that  the complainant reported the matter to OP No.1 and after checking the account of the compliannt Rs.10,000/- was found credited in his bank account and another amount of Rs.5,000/- was also not deducted from his account but remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was not adjusted in his account. The complainant requested the OPs for the same and also moved written application but to no effect. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C5.

2.                          On notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, concealment of material facts and jurisdiction of this Forum etc. It has been submitted that it was a successful transaction and the money so withdrawn was duly received by the complainant and the allegations of the complainant are baseless. It is highly impossible that the ATM machine would disburse any amount after so much time elapsed from the time of command. In case of unsuccessful transaction the amount involved is credited back forthwith within a few minutes of unsuccessful transaction. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                             Op No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant had used ATM card in ATM machine of Op No.2 on 07.04.2016 at 1.10 P.M. and the transaction of Rs.10,000/- was successful and he had collected Rs.10,000/- and this episode was recorded in CCTV installed in the ATM room. Thereafter the complainant again used his ATM card but this time no transaction took place and he went OBC branch Handesra and met Branch Manager who send guard with the complainant and in his presence Rs.1,000/- were withdrawn at 1.48 P.M. duly recorded by CCTV installed in ATM room. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5, Annexure R1/1 to R1/2.

3.                          We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                          As per version of the complainant he had withdrawn Rs.25,000/- from the ATM branch of Op No.2 but deduction has been shown in his account without disbursing any amount to him. In para No.5 of the complaint he has admitted that Rs.10,000/- has been credited in his bank account and Rs.5,000/- has not been deducted from his account, meaning thereby that there remains dispute only for Rs.10,000/-. On the other hand, the Ops have come with the plea that the transaction of Rs.10,000/- had been successful and further transaction of Rs.1,000/- which was made in the presence of the guard had also been successful, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 5.                         The OPs in their reply have submitted that all the episode has been recorded by the camera fitted in the ATM branch of Op No.2 and they also placed on file the CCTV footage Annexure R5 on the case file. Annexure R5 has been opened in the presence of complainant as well as learned counsel for the OPs and played in the computer of this office. The presence of complainant is not disputed and after seeing the recording it is clear that on 07.04.2015 the complainant had entered in the ATM room at 1.10:25 and transaction of Rs.10,000/- was made at 1.11:37 and thereafter transaction of Rs.1,000/- was made at 1.52:33 in the presence of guard. In the recording it is clear that the transaction of Rs.10,000/- was successful and the complainant also counted the currency/notes after disbursing/collecting the same from ATM machine. It is pertinent to mention here that normally machine does not lie but man may do so and the ATM machines are installed by various banks throughout the country and these machines are supported by highest technology and excellent surveillance, therefore, we have no option but to believe on the live recording recorded by the surveillance/camera fitted by the OP/bank in the ATM cabin which clearly shows that amount of Rs.10,000/- was disbursed to the complainant at 1.11:37. The complainant has disputed about deducting of Rs.25,000/- from his account  but from the above facts and circumstances it is clear that Rs.10,000/- were credited in the bank account of the complainant, Rs.5,000/- were not deducted from his account (as per admission by the complainant) and the recording Annexure R5 clearly shows that transaction of Rs.10,000/- has been successful, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

                             In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant has not been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Accordingly we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bearing their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 27.12.2017                                 

 

 

                   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N.ARORA)                                            Member                                         President