1. Surendra Kumar,

            7B, Middleton Street,

            3^rd Floor, Kolkata-71.                                                                             _________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. The State Bank of India,

            Through Branch Manager,

            1, Middleton Street, Jeevan Deep Building,

            P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71.                                                    ________ Opposite Party

Present :           Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   20    Dated  24/03/2015.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is the account holder of o.p. being account no.20003181438 and having ATM card. On 5.12.11 at about 9-15 a.m. complainant had gone to SBI ATM at Tollygunge Metro Station to withdraw Rs.6000/-. At that time complainant had a clear balance of Rs.29,699/-. Complainant further stated that there were a number of ATM machine at one cabin. Complainant tried to withdraw the sum from one of them. But he could not do it. Complainant further alleged that somebody standing near to that machine prior to entering that person told the complainant that the machine was not operating. Complainant then went to another machine and withdraw Rs.6000/- and left the place with balance receipt. Complainant further stated that he has received the confirmation from the bank that the balance to his account after transaction stood at Rs.23,699/-.

            Complainant further stated that after two days complainant had gone to ATM centre on 8.12.11 to withdraw Rs.10,000/-. But complainant was surprised that the screen of the machine showed that it could not be processed. Complainant, thereafter, went to the branch and he was told that there was no sufficient fund and the balance certificate of the complainant showed that a sum of Rs.20,000/- had been withdrawn from the ATM on 5.12.11. Complainant stated that complainant never did any withdrawn to that effect.

            Complainant lodged a complaint on 8.12.11 and o.p. by a letter dt.19.12.11 informed him that the transaction as aforesaid was made successfully as per their ATM record. Then complainant requested the o.p. to provide footage transaction which was shown on 9.1.12.

            Complainant further stated that he was surprised to note that video footage was showed of transaction of Rs.6000/- but a fraudulent withdrawn of Rs.20,000/- by the miscreant which was not prominent.

            Complainant thereafter lodged FIR on 9.1.12 before the Regent Park P.S. being case no.11 of 2012. A photocopy of the said FIR has been annexed by complainant as annex-1 with the petition of complaint.

            Complainant thereafter lodged complaints before the Banking Ombudsman regarding the transaction as stated above but the case was dismissed by Banking Ombudsman as not maintainable under clause 9 (3)(a) of Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. A photocopy of the said order has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint and marked with annex-2.

            Thereafter complainant lodged another complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and the same was also rejected under clause 13 (C) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. A photocopy of the said order has been annexed by complainant as annex-3 with the petition of complaint. 

            Under such circumstances complainant filed this case before this Forum with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.

            O.p. appeared in this case by filing w/v and contested the case. O.p. has stated that the allegation made in the petition of complaint is not correct and complainant made a false allegation against the o.p. since bank record shows that a sum of Rs.20,000/- which was withdrawn from the ATM by the PIN number which was allotted to the complainant only. Besides, complainant had not cancelled the transaction which was trying to make in the 1^st ATM machine and thereafter without canceling he used the 2^nd ATM machine and thus it can be said complainant withdrew full amount and came before this Forum with uncleaned hand for wrongful gain by alleging fraudulent using of his PIN number of the ATM card and as such, ld. lawyer of o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons:

            Upon considering the submissions of the parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we are of the view that complainant fails to substantiate his case since the PIN number which was allotted by o.p. to complainant is for using the complainant only. Besides, safe custody of the PIN number is the duty of the complainant and in such case complainant failed to do so. Besides, O.p. has rightly stated that complainant had not cancelled the transaction which he was trying to make in the 1^st ATM machine and thereafter without canceling the complainant used the 2^nd ATM machine which is not supposed to do by complainant. Under such circumstances, we hold that o.p. had not made any deficiency of service towards the complainant and as such, complainant is not entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.