Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/910/2011

Suresh Kumar S/o Babu Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shiv Ram

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 910 of 2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 26.08.2011  

                                                                                          Date of decision: 27.02.2017

Suresh Kumar son of Late Shri Babu Singh resident of House No.3, Ward No.59A, Amarpuri, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. State Bank of India, Branch, Yamuna Nagar through its branch manager.
2. State Bank of Patiala Branch, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                         ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:          Sh. Shiv Ram, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. PK Kashyap, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Mukesh Sehgal, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

ORDER  (Ashok Kumar Garg, President)

 

1                          The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant was having a Bank Account bearing No.30629224129 with the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP No.1 Bank). Complainant is also using the ATM Card Services of the Bank on the above said account against the payment. On 25.05.2011, the complainant was in need of Rs.20,000/-  and for that purpose he visited the outlet of the OP Bank for withdrawing the aforesaid amount through his ATM card,  but the ATM outlet of the OP bank without paying the aforesaid amount of Rs.20000/-  to the complainant has deducted Rs.20000/- from the account complainant and also issued a receipt to that effect. The complainant was astonished to see this false statement and brought the real fact to the notice of dealing hand of the OP Bank and also made a complaint in this regard on the same day i.e. 20.05.2011 but the complainant number was issued to the complainant on the next day i.e. 21.05.2011 vide compliant No. AT42921505860. Official of the OP Bank assured to the complainant that action will be taken on the complaint and asked to wait for 10 days. Thereafter, the OP Bank in response to the complaint of the complainant of the deposited  Rs.20,000/- in the account of complainant on 04.06.2011 but the OP Bank account deducted the amount Rs.20,000/-  from the account of the complainant on 09.06.2011 and this fact came to the knowledge of the complainant on 10.06.2011. Upon which the complainant made a complaint on the same day i.e. 10.06.2011 vide complaint No.AT42921505860. But the OP Bank did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant has also served a legal registered notice on 11.07.2011 but till date the OP Bank has not deposited of Rs.20,000/- in his account and harassing the complainant unnecessarily which constitutes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no cause of action; complainant has no locus standi; complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that on 20.05.2011, the complainant used the ATM Card of the OP No.1 Bank at ATM’s Center of State Bank of Patiala, Yamuna Nagar and withdrew the Rs.20,000/- but the intention of the complainant became mala fide and he in order to cause wrongful loss to answering OP and for his wrongful gain gave a false application mentioning therein that amount could not be withdraw from ATM machine of the State Bank of Patiala, Yamuna Nagar. On receipt of the application, the OP No.1 Bank forwarded the complaint to switch center Bombay and given the complaint number to the complainant. The switch center has two accounts of the answering OP Bank and in one account the said center credited the amount and in other account, amount is debited vide No.98582 & 98581 respectively. It is further submitted that after receipt of the complaint from the complainant the answering OP Bank forwarded the same to the above said switch center who credited the amount in account No.98582 on 01.06.2011 and after receipt of said amount the OP Bank immediately credited the same in the account of complainant on 04.06.2011 but lateron when the switch center inquired the transaction and transaction was found successful, then said switch center debited the amount in the account No.98581 on 08.06.2011 and then the OP Bank had withdrawn the amount from the account of the complainant on 09.06.2011. Thereafter, complainant again moved an application to the OP Bank and the same was forwarded upon which complainant management system sent an e-mail that the said transaction has been completed successfully and asked the answering OP Bank to advise the complainant accordingly. Thereafter, on 18.08.2011, the complainant moved an application stating therein to provide CD of the aforesaid transaction and the complainant was told orally that the transaction has taken place from ATM on State Bank of Patiala, so the CD would be provided by them and on merit facts mentioned in the complaint were denied and reiterated the facts mentioned in preliminary objection.

4.                     OP No.2 Bank State Bank of Patiala also appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 Bank; complainant has no locus standi; complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been admitted that 20.05.2011, the complainant visited in the cabin of ATM Machine of the answering OP No.2 Bank. However, it has been denied that ATM Machine, without paying Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, has deducted the said amount from the account of complaint. In this regard it has been submitted that on 20.05.2011 at about 04:15 P.M complainant has visited the ATM Machine No.S-10A 500089001 of the OP No.2 Bank bearing Branch code No.00089 and has operated his account No.0000030629224129 SBI, Yamuna Nagar through his ATM Card No.6220180129300162762 having transaction No.9690. The aforesaid transaction has been successfully done. Rs.20,000/- has been debited from the total amount of the ATM and shows the remaining balance amount after deducting Rs.20000/-. The answering OP Bank has printout of log book ATM Machine on 20.05.2011 and the aforesaid transaction was duly shown in the Log Print out being successfully transaction. Lastly, it has been mentioned that as the transaction was successful. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.5.                  Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photocopy of passbook as Annexure C-1, photocopy of emails as Annexure C-2 to C-4, photocopy of legal notice as annexure C-5, postal receipt and acknowledgement as Annexure C-6 and C-7 and copy of CD as Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Arvind Kumar Manager, SBI as Annexure RW1, photocopy of statement of account of the complainant as Annexure R-1, copy of email as Annexure R-2, photocopy of print out of JP Log and Carbon copy of letter dated 20.08.2011 as Annexure R-3, letter dated 29.08.2011 a Annexure R-4, letter dated 12.09.2011 as Annexure R-5, letter dated 30.09.2011 as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     Learned counsel for the OP No.2 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri SR Ansal, Chief Manager of State Bank of Patiala as Annexure RW2/A, photocopy of entry of transaction of the ATM machine consisting 04 pages as Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.  

8.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

9.                     The only version of the complainant is that he visited the outlet of the OP No.2 Bank for withdrawing the amount of Rs. 20,000/- through ATM Machine but the ATM Outlet of the OP No.2 Bank without paying the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant has deducted the amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the account of the complainant and issued a receipt to that effect. Upon which, he lodged the complaint with the OP No.1 Bank on the same day but the Op No.1 issued complaint number on the next day i.e. on 21.05.2011. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attentions towards the photo copy of pass book Annexure C-1 and also draw our attentions towards photo copy of e-mail Annexure C-3 and argued that upon complaint made by the complainant, the OP No.1 Bank refunded/ credited the amount of Rs. 20,000/- but later on, on 09.06.2011 withdrew the same again from the account of the complainant which is duly evident from the copy of account statement Annexure R-1. Learned counsel for the complainant also draw our attention towards the CD i.e. Video Clip Annexure C-8 and argued that in the CD also no amount has been received by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the case law titled as State Bank of India Versus Hariom Tiwari & Another, IV (2010) CPJ page 275. Lastly, prayed for acceptance of complaint.

10.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 Bank argued at length that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention whereas the complainant has withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- from the ATM Machine of S.B.O.P. Yamuna Nagar. Learned counsel for the Op No.1 further argued that it is correct that firstly the OP No.1  Bank refunded/credited the amount of Rs. 20,000/- in the account of the complainant on 04.06.2011 after receiving the amount from the State Bank of Patiala on 01.06.2011 but later on when it was found that transaction was successful then the State Bank of Patiala  (OP No.2) withdrew the amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the account of OP No.1 Bank on 09.06.2011 and accordingly, the OP No.1 Bank also withdrew the amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the account of the complainant on 09.06.2011 which is duly evident from the copy of account statement Annexure R-1. Learned counsel for the Op No.1, further draw our attention towards the copy of e-mail alongwith J.P. Log print Annexure R-2, in which transaction has been shown as successful. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further argued that on receiving the complaint from the complainant, OP No.1 Bank immediately forwarded the same to the OP No.2 Bank and draws our attention towards the letters written by Op No.1 to OP No.2 Bank Annexure R-3 to R-6. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 draw our attention towards the case law titled as State Bank of India Versus K.K. Bhalla, Revision Petition No. 3182 of 2008 decided on 07.04.2011 and another case law titled as Punjab National Bank Versus Sh. Surendra Kumar Pal and another First Appeal No. 326 of 2013 decided on 29.08.2016. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.1.

11.                   Learned counsel for the OP No.2 Bank also draw our attention towards the transaction detail list of the ATM Machine of the Op No.2 Bank Annexure R2/1 and argued that there was a balance of Rs. 5,79,500/- in the ATM Machine and after withdrawing the amount of Rs. 20,000/- by the complainant it becomes Rs. 5,59,500/-. Learned counsel for the Op No.2 Bank further argued that from this list, it is also clearly evident that someone has withdrawn the cash of Rs. 1500/- on the same day at 16:11:59 and after that complainant withdrew the amount of Rs. 20,000/- on the same day i.e. on 20.05.2011 at 16:15:40 and even after that someone other also withdrew an amount of Rs. 500/- on the same day i.e. 20.05.2011 at 16:21:05 and even after that also all the transactions were successful. So, it is not possible that any complainant has not received any amount. No other complaint has been filed by anyone except the complainant and lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.2 Bank.

12.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Bank as from the perusal of J.P. Log print and copy of E-mail Annexure R-2, it is clear that the transaction was successful. Further, from the copy of transaction detail of the ATM Machine, it is also duly evident that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been withdrawn through the ATM Card bearing No. 6220180129300162762 vide transaction No. 9690 on 20.05.2011 at 16:15:40 which was successful as after deducting Rs. 20,000/- the balance becomes in the ATM Machine as Rs. 5,59,500/- instead of Rs. 5,79,500/-. Further, from the transaction list Annexure R2/1, it is also duly evident that the ATM Machine of OP No.2 Bank was working properly on 20.05.2011 since morning 7:21:10 AM till 22:41:49 PM and all the transactions which are near about 80 transactions have been shown as successful. Further, from the perusal of this list, it is also duly evident that there was opening balance of Rs. 7,47,000/- at 7:21:10 A.M. and there was balance of Rs. 4,96,600/- at 22:41:49. Further, we have also seen the videography which has been placed on file as Annexure C-8 in that Videography also it is duly evident that firstly one person was operating the machine and after that the complainant visited the ATM cabin and after that one another man visited the ATM cabin and after that also persons are coming and going in the cabin of the ATM Machine of the Op No.2 Bank. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant that in this Videography it has not been shown that complainant was getting the amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the ATM Machine but the arguments of the counsel for the complainant have no weightage as the camera was fixed only on the face of the persons visiting the ATM Cabin not on the cash outlet of the ATM Machine. From the other angle also, complainant has not placed on file any independent evidence by way of affidavit or otherwise to prove that the transaction in question was not successful. The witnesses were easily available at that time which is duly evident from the videography (CD) as persons for operating ATM Machine were in queue outside of the ATM Machine and even one person was present in the ATM Machine before the complainant and immediately after that one person also visited the ATM Machine after the complainant. But the complainant has totally failed to disclose the name of those persons who were present in the ATM Machine and even did not bother to place on file any affidavit of those persons in support of his version that he has not received the money from the ATM Machine of the OP No.2 Bank. No doubt the Op No.1 Bank credited/refund the amount of Rs. 20,000/- in the account of the complainant on 04.06.2011 and the same was withdrawn again on 09.06.2011 but it was due to the reason which has been duly explained by the Ops in their written statement which seems genuine as the complainant totally failed to controvert the same by filing any cogent evidence. The case law titled as State Bank of India Versus Hariom Tiwari & Another (Supra) referred by the counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case as in that case Op Bank was not furnished any documents to show how much money was kept in the ATM Machine of the Bank clearance and how much money remains unused but in the present case, the Op No.2 Bank has duly placed on file transaction statement Annexure R2/1 in which opening balance and closing balance of the ATM machine has been duly mentioned.

13.                   In the circumstances noted above, it is clear that the transaction was successful which is duly evident from the copy of J.P. Log print and further from the copy of list of transaction of the ATM Machine Annexure R2/1. As such, we are of the considered ew that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case, hence we have no option except to dismiss the complaint of the complainant.

14.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 27.02.2017.

 

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                          DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER