BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION
UNAKOTI DISTRICT : KAILASHAHAR
C A S E NO. C. C. 03/2022
SHRI DURGAPADA BHATTACHARJEE
Son of Janardan Bhattacharjee
Near Dharmanagar Hospital,
Ward No.5, P.O.- Dharmanagar
P.S. & Sub-Division- Dharmanagar,
District – North Tripura
…......COMPLAINANT.
V E R S U S
- State Bank of India
Head Office, 18, 19
Devdas Kamlleg Block,
Synergy Building G. Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra East, Mumbari,
Maharastra, PIN- 400051
(Represented by Branch Manager, SBI,
Dharmanagar Bazar Branch.
- The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Dharmanagar Bazar Branch,
P.O. – Dharmanagar,
P.S. & Sub-Division- Dharmanagar,
District – North Tripura, Pin- 799251
……..OPPOSITE PARTIES
P R E S E N T
SHRI P. KUMAR
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION
UNAKOTI DISTRICT :: KAILASHAHAR
A N D
SHRI S. SINHA, MEMBER
SMT. M. DATTA, MEMBER
C O U N S E L
For the Complainant :- Mr. C. Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
For the Opposite Parties: - Mr. P. P. Datta, Advocate
ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION: 31-03-2022
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 29-11-2022
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Shri Durgapada Bhattacharya under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 claiming refund amount of Rs.10,000/- and compensation from the opposite party No.2 for deficiency in service.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint petition are that the complainant has got a Bank Account bearing No. 20192546131 with ATM facilities in the State Bank of India, Dharmanagar Branch, OP No.2. On 27-12-2021 the complainant wanted to withdraw Rs.10,000/- by way of ATM from the ATM Booth of the SBI situated at Hospital Road, Dharmanagar. He did not receive any money, but received one message in his mobile phone showing debit of Rs.10,000/- from his aforesaid bank account. At once, the complainant communicated with the Bank Authority about the incident. The Bank Authority received his complained advised him to wait for a week. On 21-01-2022 complainant received a message from the Bank which stated as follows:-
“Dear SBI customer, case- 81827628 is created for the complaint registered by you and is expected to be resolved within five days.” On the same day at about 6.26 pm the complainant received another message contents of which are as follows:-
“Dear customer, thank you for banking with us, case – 81827628 created for ATM RELATED-ATM RELATED-ACCOUNT DEBITED BUT CASH NOT DISPENSED IS UNDER INVESTIGATION AND WILL BE RESOLVED SOON, SBI CUSTOMER CARE”, but after waiting five days c complainant did not receive any money. Thereafter the complainant met the Branch Manager, SBI Main Branch, Dharmanagar who advised him to go to SBI, Bazar Branch for display of CCTV video footage on the day of his transaction. The complainant accordingly went to Bazar Branch of SBI for display of the CCTV footage, but the Branch Manager did not display rather abused him for his such request. At this being dissatisfied with the acts of OP No. 2 the complainant filed the instant complaint with a prayer for passing necessary order directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of complainant vide No. 20192546131 with interest and also compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for metal pangs and agony. OP No. 2 appeared and submitted written statement stating inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; it is barred by the relevant positions of law, there is no cause of action etc. The real fact as unfolded in the WS of the OP No. 2 is that on 21-01-2022 the complainant approached the OP No. 2 with a grievance that on 27-12-2021 the complainant used his ATM card with intend to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from the ATM booth of SBI situated at Hospital Road, Dharmanagar, but he did not receive the money from the ATM, rather he got a message in his mobile phone about debit of Rs.10,000/- from his account vide No. 20192546131. Accordingly, an online complaint was lodged immediately to the SBI CRM (Customer Request and Complaint Form) on the basis of which case id No. 81827628 was registered. Thereafter, ATM Switch Center, Belapur inquired details regarding ATM transaction dated 27-12-2021 in connection with complainant’s SBI account No. 20192546131 and ATM ID No. SIBU000067003 and after inquiry it was revealed that complainant’s ATM transaction dated 27-12-2021 in respect of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from ATM booth of SBI, Hospital Road, Dharmanagar has been successful and accordingly his claim of Rs.10,000/- was rejected by the CRM, SBI and his complaint was closed on 31-01-2022 and this was intimated to the complainant by the Branch Manager, SBI, Dharmanagar Bazar Branch. It is further stated in the WS that the OP No. 2 is responsible Bank Officer and he tried his level best to resolve the issue very seriously without any negligence. The complainant suppressed the vital material facts and without any proper intimation lodged the instant complaint against the OPs to harass them. It is also pointed out in the WS that the complainant’s aforesaid bank account is lying with SBI, Dharmanagar Bazar Branch, but the ATM from which he withdrew Rs.10,000/- is of the SBI, Dharmanagar Main Branch and as a result no CCTV footage is available with the OP No. 2 and as such, the complaint lodged by the complainant deserves dismissal.
3. The complainant has adduced evidence by way of examination-in-chief on affidavit as PW-1 recapitulating the facts as have been stated by him in the complaint petition and as such, for the sake of brevity the evidence is not repeated. However, during re-examination, the complainant has exhibited the following documents: -
- Copy of bank passbook (savings account) in the name of the complainant alongwith statement of transaction - Exbt.1
- SMS showing registration of online complaint dated 21-01-2022 - Exbt.2
- Message showing investigation relating to ATM account debited but cash not dispensed – Exbt. 3
- Copy of letter issued to the Branch Manager, SBI, Dharmanagar Branch written by the complainant – Exbt. 4
During cross- examination complainant stated that he did not submit any ATM related receipt from the ATM, but he volunteered that he did not receive any receipt of ATM during his transaction and so he did not submit the same. To a question he stated that in the passbook which he submitted on his behalf shows that the amount was received by him through the ATM. He further stated in cross that he lodged one online complaint bearing Id No.81827628 dated 21-01-2022 and he received the registration of the same. He admitted that he knows one investigation was done by the SBI, CRM, Belapur Branch and further stated that he did not know whether any investigation report was submitted by the bank to the effect that he received the amount withdrawn from the ATM. He denied the defence suggestion that he received any message relating to the investigation report given by the bank relating to successful transaction and that he filed this case on frivolous ground inspite of receipt of the amount withdrawn from the ATM on 2712-2021 and that he received the amount withdrawn from the ATM.
4. From the side of the OP No. 2 Sri Kunal Sinha, Branch Manager, SBI Dharmanagar Bazar Branch adduced evidence as OPW No. 1 wherein he stated the same in the line of the written statement of the OP No. 2 and discussion of the same is not made to avoid repetition.
However, he has exhibited the following documents:-
- Verified copy of statements of SBI CRM in connection with case Id No. 81827628 in 13(thirteen) sheets:- Ext. A series
- Verified copy of bank account statement dated 27-12-2021 in connection with a/c No. 20192546131 in 1(one) sheet - Ext.B
During cross-examination OPW No,.1 stated that he has not mentioned the name of the specific person who inquired the case bearing Id No. 81827628 and that the mode of inquiry he has not spelt out by submitting any supporting document relating to Ext. A. He admitted that they have not made Snehal as OPW in this case. He further admitted that he has submitted the verified copy of documents and did not submit any certified copy of the documents and has not complied with Section 4 of the Banker’s Book of Evidence Act. OPW No. 1 admitted that ATM which fall within the jurisdiction of Dhar area are operated by the concerned branch and he has not submitted any document relating to the opening and closing balance of the ATM relating to the present case.
5. During the course of argument learned counsel Mr. D. Tarafdar appearing on behalf of the complainant argued that in the case at hand Consumer’s Right has been grossly violated. OP No. 2 is liable for ATM accounts, but he did not perform his duty. On the part of the OP No. 2 enquiry was done and the same is submitted but by the person, Snehal by name, enquiry was made has not been produced before this Commission as OPW and as such, the enquiry report cannot be treated as admissible. As per section 4 of the Banker’s Book of Evidence Act the OP No. 2 ought to have submitted the certified copy of the enquiry report and as such, Ext. A is not admitted being not certified copy. It is further submitted that the OP No. 2 could not resolve the issue within 5 days, as was pledged by him so liability goes towards same. On the contray, it is argued from the side of the OP that the disputed amount of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant and the bank account passbook shows that the amount was debited. On the complaint of the complainant case was registered and accordingly enquiry was held following it was established that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was actually withdrawn from the bank account of the complainant. It is also submitted by the OP counsel that the delay in intimating the result of the enquiry occurred because the office of the CRM is situated at Mumbai. There is no lacuna on the part of the OP No. 2 and as such, the case should be dismissed. On conclusion of the argument on the part of the OP No. 2 learned counsel of the complainant further added that the OPW No. 1 has admitted that it is their duty to check the ATM regarding opening and closing balance, they did not do it and as such, their negligence is clearly proved in this case.
6. The point required to be adjudicated in this case is as follows:
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.10,000/- from the OP with interest and further get back of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency of service and rendering pain and sufferings to the complainant?
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
7. Bank’s statement submitted by the complainant, which is marked as Ext. 1, it shows that on 27-12-2021 there is debit of Rs.10,000/- from the bank account of the complainant bearing No. 20192546131 as ATM cash, Hospital Road. Ext. 2, mobile message dated 21-01-2022 given from the SBI CRM to the complainant states that “case – 81827628 is created for the complaint registered by him and is expected to be resolved within 5 D days.” This shows that the OP bank registered case on the complaint of the complainant and assured to resolve the issue within next five days. On the same day, i.e., on 21-01-2022 another message was communicated from the SBI CRM which states that “case-81827628 created for ATM related-ATM related-account debited but cash not dispensed is under investigation and will be resolved soon.”
The moot point in this case whether the cash alleged to be withdrawn from the ATM booth by the complainant was dispensed or not. According to complainant, he inserted the ATM card in the ATM booth on 27-12-2021 for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-, but in the process he did not receive the amount as cash was not dispensed. On the other hand, OP No.2 at the first instance inform the complainant when he lodged complaint with the OP No. 2 that the issue of non-receipt of the amount is under investigation and will be resolved soon and finally on inquiry OP No. 2 detected that the amount was really debited from the account of the complainant on 27-12-2021 and the complainant received the amount and as such, the case of the complainant was closed and the result was dully intimated to the complainant. On perusal of the bank statement as submitted by the complainant (Ext. 1) it is found that in the statement there is indication of debit amount of Rs.10,000/- on 27-12-2021 as ATM cash from the ATM booth situated at Hospital Road, Dharmanagar. Sometimes it so happens that amount is not dispensed, but message is received regarding withdrawal of the amount, the technicality best known to the bank. This might be the case of the complainant. The bank statement submitted by the complainant is computer generated, i.e., software base and as such, if the amount was really debited, the computer will obviously show such debit. The complainant on the date of the alleged incident approach the OP No. 2 and informed the incident of nonreceipt of the amount and as such, there was ample scope on the part of the OP No. 2 to verify the account of the complainant on that day itself, but they did not do so. The episode could have been clear on the day of alleged transaction had the OP No. 2 verified the account of the complainant. In cross witness of the OP No. 2 clearly stated that he has not submitted any document relating to the opening and closing balance of the ATM on the date of incident. Had the OP No. 2 exercised the matter of opening and closing balance of the ATM on that date he could find out the matter, but neither in the written statement nor in the evidence the OP no. 2 has elicited this aspect. ATMs are under the coverage of CCTV and in the case at hand CCTV footage could clearly prove the episode of withdraw and cash dispensation of the amount by the complainant, but the OP No. 2 did not take any effort to collect the CCTV footage from the SBI, Bazar Branch, Dharmanagar. It is a fact that the bank authority- initiated enquiry and submitted enquiry report, but in cross OPW No.1 clearly admitted that he has not submitted any supportive document relating to Ext. A, verified copy of statements SBI CRM in connection with case Id No. 81827628, by which the OP No. 2 wanted to prove that transaction amount of Rs.10,000/- was dispensed. OP No. 2 also did not submit the certified copy of the inquiry report and also did not spell out the name of the person by whom the inquiry was made and as such, has not complied with section 4 of the Banker’s Book of Evidence Act and consequently, the documents submitted by the OP No. 2 showing that inquiry was made and it was found that transaction was successful, do not aid the OP No. 2 to prove that the complainant received the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 27-12-2021 and his claim is unreasonable and false. It is not expected that for a very negligible amount of Rs.10,000/- the complainant, who is a businessman, shall entangled himself in such complicacy. All the aforesaid discussions only answer that the complainant did not receive Rs.10,000/- on 27-12-2021 from the ATM booth maintained by the SBI, Bazar Branch, Dharmanagar. It can not be denied that because of the activities of the OP No.2 the complainant went through sufferings and metal agony and ultimately, resorted to litigation and as such, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.7,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings.
8. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP No.2.
O R D E R
9. In the result, OP No.2, State Bank of India represented by the Manager, SBI, Bazar Branch, Dharmanagar is directed to arrange credit of Rs.10,000/- in the savings bank account of the complainant bearing No. 20192546131 lying in the SBI, Bazar Branch, Thana Road, Dharmanagar. The OP No. 2 is further directed to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as pain and sufferings, either by way of cash/check/ account transaction. It is made clear that the transaction shall have to be made within a period of 02(two) months from today.
10. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and the OP No. 2 free of cost.
11. The case stands disposed of on contest.
12. Make necessary entry in the TR.
ANNOUNCED
(P. KUMAR)
PRESIDENT
(S. SINHA) (M. DATTA)
MEMBER MEMBER
