DATE OF FILING : 03-11-2011.
DATE OF S/R : 05-12-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29-05-2012.
Sri Asit Santra,
son of late Basudeb Santra,
residing at 24/7/1, Brindabon Mullick Lane,
P.S. Bantra, District. Howrah COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. The State Bank of India,
having its office of Chief General Manager,
Bengal Circle at Samriddhi Bhavan,
1, Strand Road,
Kolkata. 700001.
2. The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Kadamtala Branch, 47, Deshpran Sasmal Road,
P.S. Bantra, District. Howrah,
PIN . 711101. OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
F I N A L O R D E R
The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to refund Rs. 7,000/- together with interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental pain and agony and litigation costs.
The complainant an ATM Card holder of S.B.I, Kadamtoal Branch,
Deshpran Sasmal Road, P.S. Bantra, District. Howrah, having S.B. A/C No. 10345738973 and Debit Card being no. 6220180479000003273, collected Rs. 2,000/- on 01-05-2010 vide TXN 9529 at about 17:15 hrs. from the ATM and collected the customer advice at the material time and found the available balance standing to his credit was Rs. 8466.14. But on his necessity when he again withdrew a sum of Rs. 400/- at 21.57 hrs. from the ATM of the said branch he found from the ATM customer advice to his utter surprise that the available balance stood to be Rs. 1,066.14. Being at a loss the complainant ran from pillar to post but with no tangible result. Hence the case.
O.P. no.2, Manager, S.B.I, Kadamtola Branch, in his written version
denied the material allegations and contended interlaid that it is not possible to withdraw money from the ATM Counter by any ATM Card holder until and unless the secret code numbers are pushed as per demand , that no question of deputing security at the ATM Counter does arise , that the local police authority has been investigating the allegation and unless the investigation is completed nothing can be done for the complainant , so no question of deficiency in service does arise. The complaint should be dismissed.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant is the ATM Card holder. The first customer advice reflects that at 17:15 hrs. Rs. 2,000/- was withdrawn and the balance stood Rs. 8,466/-. The second such advice reflects that Rs. 400/- was withdrawn at about 21:57 hrs. on the same date and the available balance stood to be Rs. 1,066/-. The complainant was very much surprised to see how Rs. 7,000/-can vanish from his account when he did not withdraw the same amount in between 17:15 hrs. to 21:57 hrs., nearly 5 hrs. Whatever be the statements of the O.P. no. 2, the money which figured in the customer advice of 17:15 hrs. how could vanish within the lapse of 5 hours when it is the persistent claim of the complainant that he never withdrew the same. The O.P. no. 2 cannot have any proper explanation for such ghost disappearance of the money. The conduct of the O.P. no. 2 to shove the entire dispute under the carpet on the fragile plea of police investigation being pending, is not at all supportable. If the result of the police investigation ends in fiasco, what would be the fate of the hard-earned money of the complainant? The O.P. no. 2 had ample opportunity to scan the CCTV and could well decipher if the 3rd party, against whom the complainant has strong suspicion, withdrew the amount in the twinkling of an eye when the complainant shifted to the other counter being no. 9112 being unsuccessful in his bid in the counter no. 9113. The CCTV if scanned could reveal the existence of any unknown miscreant in the counter no. 9113 as soon as the complainant left it for the second counter. In stead of discharging their obligations, the bank authority thought it better to shift the entire responsibility upon the complainant and to pass philosophical advice for having patience till the completion of the police investigation.
6. In our considered opinion the O.P. no. 2 cannot shift its responsibility as they are the custodian of the savings of the complainant and he is to be held responsible for the monetary loss of the complainant. If the customers lack faith upon the custodian and service providers for their cavalier attitude, the people are to suffer in the long run. The complainant left no stone unturned for getting redress and ran from pillar to post for replenishment of his hard-earned money. To our estimation it is the O.P. no. 2 who is held responsible for the ultimate loss of the complainant. O.P. no. 2 has no respite from the rigours of law.
In the result the complaint succeeds. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 90 of 2011 ( HDF 90 of 2011 ) be allowed on contest with costs against all the O.Ps.
The O.P. no. 2 do pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- together with the interest at 10persent per annum since 01-05-2012 toll full and final payment.
The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for prolonged mental pain and agony and a litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- from the o.p. no. 2.
The o.p. no. 2 do pay decreetal dues within 30 days from the date of this order failing the entire amount shall carry interest at 12persent per annum till full satisfaction.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
