Delhi

North

RBT/CC/228/2022

SMT.ANITA DOGRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jun 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

RBT/CC NO.228/2022

[DCDRC-V CC No.149/2018]

In the matter of

Smt Anita Dogra

W/o Sh. V.S.Dogra

R/o  Flat No.7, Khasra No.844-45

Lal Dora (Extention), Street No.1

Sant Nagar, Burari,Delhi-110084                                                          ...  Complainant

                                                                                                 

                   Versus

State Bank of India

(through its Branch Manager)

Kh. No.759/2, main Road

Sant Nagar, Burari

Delhi-110084                                                                           ...  Opposite Party-1

 

Dena Bank

(Through its Branch Manager)

Sant Nagar, Burari

787/2, Main Road, Burari Chowk

Sant Nagar, Delhi-110084                                                                     ...Opposite Party-2

ORDER
20/06/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been filed by Smt. Anita Dogra through Special Power of Attorney, Sh.V.S.Dogra, husband of the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the State Bank of India as OP-1 and Dena bank as OP-2 .

1. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant is having Saving bank account bearing No.152210042076 with Dena Bank, Burari (OP-2).and having an ATM card bearing No.4695*******00960. 
2. On 28/10/2017, around 10.00 am the complainant along with her husband visited the ATM of OP-2 to withdraw cash which was out of service at that time, so the complainant along with her husband visited the nearby ATM of State Bank of India (OP-1).  It has been stated that the ATM chamber has 02 ATMs of OP-1.  No cash was dispensed from the first ATM, therefore the husband of the complainant cancelled the transaction and tried to withdraw Rs.2,000/- from 2^nd ATM at 10.15 a.m.
3. Thereafter, the complainant was shocked to receive a message on the registered mobile number stating that Rs.10,000/- have been deducted from the complainant’s account using the same ATM at 10.20 am.
4. On 30/11/2017, the next working day, the complainant visited the branch of OP-2 and registered a complaint with respect to the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- for which complaint No.2017103012463248 was issued.  The complainant was informed vide letter dated 07/11/2017 that the withdrawal transaction of Rs.10,000/- was successful as per confirmation received from OP-1. 
5. Thereafter, the complainant approached the PS, Burari and lodged a complaint dated 08/11/2017 vide Diary No.33/B with respect to the fraud.  The complainant has alleged that the Investigating Officer and the complainant visited OP-1 with request for CCTV footage of the said day for further inspection and action.  The complainant was assured that the deduction of Rs.10,000/- will be credited back to the account of the complainant as the said deduction had happened because of some technical glitch.    It has been stated by the complainant that the Manager at SBI Branch bank had furnished a screenshot of the transaction wherein the amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited and also credited at the same time which clearly reflected that there was no actual withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-.  However, despite assurance the deducted amount has not been credited in the account of the complainant.  The complaint was filed before Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi against OP on 05/01/2018 as well.
6. Hence, the present complaint alleging deficiency in service and malpractice as OP-1 has failed to resolve the complaint as per RBI guidelines DPSS.PD No.2632/02.10.002/2010-2011 dated May 27, 2011 which mandates the recrediting of the consumer account within 07 days from date of the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to  OP-1 and OP-2 to settle the account and re-credit the amount of Rs.10,000/- deducted from the account of the complainant ; direct OP-1 and OP-2 to settle the account and the complainant by allowing 100% compensation for delay in settlement; to  pay compensation for mental harassment and cost of litigation expenses.
7.  The complainant has annexed the form of complaint with the banking ombudsman, a letter dated 30/10/2017 to the Manager, Dena Bank, letter dated 07/11/2017 by OP-2,  complaint dated 08/11/2017 to SHO, PS Burari, copy of the complaint to Banking Ombudsman dated 03/01/2018; screenshots of the ATM alert log with the complaint.
8. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs.  None appeared on behalf of the OP-2 despite service, hence they were proceeded as ex-parte vide order dated 25/07/2018.
9. Written statement was filed on behalf of the OP-1, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as the complaint was false, fabricated and manipulated; there was no cause of action in the favour of complainant as the money was dispensed.
10. It was submitted that as per the RBI guidelines, no one can give his/her ATM card to anyone for withdrawal of the cash or any other transaction from the ATM.  In case one does so, he/she will be responsible for any act and in the present case the complainant herself has admitted that on 28/10/2017 her husband had withdrawn Rs.10,000/.  Thus, there was neither any deficiency in service nor any negligence on the part of OP-1. 
11. It was submitted that as per EJ/JP log , in the 03 preceding transactions from the disputed transactions it was clear that the transactions of the complainant was successful. 
12.  Prior to the transaction of the complainant there were only 02 transactions which pertained to balance inquiry saving and thereafter on 10.19 a.m. the complainant had swiped her card for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- which was successful.  They have submitted that upon receiving the request from OP-2 with respect to CCTV footage, OP-1 had forwarded their request to M/s. Die Bold for providing EJ log and CCTV footage with respect to 02 transactions.  Rest of the content of the complaint has been denied with relief for dismissal of the complaint.
13. They have annexed the EJ Log as Annexure R1/1, Gazette Notification dated 26/08/1972 as Annexure R1/2 .
14. Rejoinder to the Written statement of OP-1 was filed on behalf of the complainant where the complainant has repeated the contents of the complaint and has annexed the copy of passbook depicting the disputed transactions. 
15. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where contents of the complaint have been reiterated.
16. OP-1 have got examined Sh. Ambikesh Kumar, Deputy Manager with SBI, branch Burari.  He has repeated the contents of their written statement and has got exhibited the copy of application Form for ATM Transaction dispute as Ex.RW-1/1, copy of email whereby request was made for providing CCTV footage of ATM as Ex.RW-1/2(however, the same is not on record) and EJ entry record i.e. ATM transaction and Core transaction generated automatically by bank as Ex.RW-1/3.
17. We have heard the submission made on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material placed on record.  The complainant is aggrieved by the debit entry of Rs.10,000/- from her account. The complainant has been prompt in registering a complaint with OP-2 as 28/10/2017 was Saturday and the next working day was 30/10/2017, Monday when the complainant approached OP-2 for redressal of her grievance but the amount debited from the account of the complainant was not credited.
18. As per the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) circular NPCI/2012-13/NFS/2737 dated 26.03.2013, in case of the disputed transaction, the acquirer bank must provide three transactions before and three transactions after the ‘Disputed transaction’ in the JP/EJ ATM logs. In the present case, OP-1 in their defence has filed the EJ entry record i.e. ATM transaction and Core transaction (Ex.RW-1/3), the disputed transaction is TXN. 6839, OP-1 has filed EJ log pertaining to transaction numbers 6837,6838, 6839 and 6840 whereas per the circular; OP-1 was required to file EJ log depicting transaction from TXN No.6836 to TXN No.6842, which is not so. This amounts to non-compliance of the above mentioned circular. Further, the same document which has been supplied by “Diebold Nixdorf” also bears:

TRANSACTION LUNO123

SERIAL #6840

CASSETTE TAMPER, STATUS CHANGED

This reflects that the ATM transaction details have been subsequently modified/tampered. The EJ log filed by OP-1 does not inspire confidence and casts a doubt on the document. Further, the Core transaction reflects two entries corresponding to transaction time as 10.19.24 hrs both bearing Journal No. 401965569 pertaining to ATM no. SING017036131. One is the credit entry of    Rs. 10,000/- and another is the debit entry of Rs.10,000/-. It supports the averment of the complainant that there was some technical issue with the functioning of the ATM of OP-1 as it is not possible to make two entries at the same time i.e 10.19.24 hrs.

19. The above referred circular also states that all banks have to facilitate providing CCTV images of failed ATM transactions to Bank customers when requested.  OP-1 in para 8 of reply on merits in their written statement has submitted that upon receiving the request from OP-2 regarding CCTV footage, they had forwarded the mail to “M/s Diebold” for providing the EJ log and CCTV footage of ATM regarding two transactions.   It is observed that only EJ log details have been filed and they have failed to supply the CCTV footage.   
20. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission in ‘State Bank of India Vs. Sansar Chand Kapoor and Ors.’ (2015) CPJ 135 (NC) as under;

“It is an admitted case that CCTV recording was provided by the respondent No.2 - Punjab National Bank to the petitioner State Bank of India but despite request of the complainant a copy of the said video footage was not provided to him. Though according to the petitioner-bank the said video footage was shown to the complainant and his son-in-law when they visited the bank, that in our opinion would not be sufficient and considering the fraudulent withdrawal claimed by the complainant, the bank ought to have made available a copy of the aforesaid CCTV footage to the complainant. The petitioner-bank, therefore, was deficient in rendering services to the complainant, by not making available a copy of the aforesaid CCTV footage to him. For the reasons stated hereinabove the order of the District Forum and the State Commission to the extent the petitioner-bank has been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant along with interest is set aside. However, the order to the extent it awards compensation and cost of litigation to the Complainant is upheld.”

21. Following the observations of Hon’ble National Commission in Sansar Chand Kapoor (supra), Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 1020/2014, decided on 01.03.2023, titled as ‘State Bank of India Vs. Ms. Madhu Chawla’ also held that non supply of copy of CCTV to the complainant shall amount to deficiency in service on the part of the bank.
22. Therefore, in the light of above judgements, non-compliance of the NPCI circular as well as non-supply of CCTV footage by OP-1 amounts to deficiency in services and as evident from the transactions in the EJ log ,it cannot be said that the ATM of OP-1 was working properly. Thus, the benefit of the same is to be given to the complainant.
23. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we direct OP-1 to refund Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  We further award Rs.7,500/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of  litigation expenses in the favour of the complainant to be paid by OP-1.  The said order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order.  In case of non-compliance Rs.17,500/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.7,500/-) shall carry interest @7% p.a. from the date of order till realisation. 

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.Order also be uploaded on the website.Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta) Member

 

 

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)