This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Haryana, Panchkula dated 15.10.2012 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of the opposite parties being Appeal No.1425/2011 and set aside the order of the District Forum resulting in dismissal of the complaint of the petitioner.

2.         Briefly put the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that petitioner complainant was having Saving Bank Account No.11504615387 with opposite party no.1 Bank and he was issued a Debit card against the aforesaid account.  It is the case of the complainant that opposite party unauthorisedly debited a sum of Rs.3000/- from his saving account on 14.10.2001 whereas he had not indulged in any transaction regarding withdrawal of said amount. The  said discrepancy in the account was brought to the notice of the bank but the bank declined to reverse the entry and this led to filing of the complaint.

3.         Respondents opposite parties resisted the complaint on the ground that on 02.10.2010, the petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs.3000/- from the ATM of State Bank of Patiala but due to some technical fault the amount withdrawn from the ATM was not debited to the account of the petitioner.  When this fact came to the notice, a debit entry of Rs.3000/- was done in the saving account of the petitioner.  Thus, the opposite parties alleged that they have not committed any deficiency in service.

4.         The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund / deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- in the account of the complainant with 6% interest p.a. from the date of debit till deposit. Besides Rs.200/- was awarded as compensation to the petitioner on account of mental pain and agony and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.

5.         Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties approached the State Commission and the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint with following observations:

“From the perusal of record, it is a case wherein complainant has withdrawn a sum of Rs.3000/- from the ATM of SBOP but due to technical fault the said amount was not debited in the account of the complainant on date of operation of ATM but later on the said amount was debited to the branch of OP-1.  In our view the ATM cards are being issued with the secret PIN code numbers to the account holders without which the amount cannot be withdrawn from the account of account holder.  The ATM is a machine which reads and respond only what is commanded to it.  When ATM has shown the withdrawal of Rs.3000/- successfully, it cannot be said that the money was not withdrawn from the account of the complainant.

The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3182 of 2008 titled as State Bank of India Versus K.K.Bhalla decided on 7.4.2011 has been held that:

“Respondent confirmed before us that the ATM card as well as the PIN number was only in his personal custody and knowledge and he had used the card only four times for smaller withdrawals.  Under these circumstances, it was obvious that the account was fraudulently operated through the ATM. He suspected some bank staff to be involved in it.  It was also suspicious that the CCTV footage was not available and in view of these circumstances the learned fora had rightly concluded that the petitioner / Bank was responsible for the fraudulent use of the ATM which he should be compensated.

The facts of the instant case fully attracted to the case law cited (supra)

From the perusal of the record, it is clearly established on the record that on 2.10.2010 the complainant used the ATM card in the ATM counter of State Bank of Patiala wherein he withdrew a sum of Rs.3000/- from his account but to technical fault the said amount was debited from the account of the complainant on 14.10.2010.  OP have placed on file JP log showing successful operation of ATM and withdrawal.  Complainant is only trying to take unnecessary benefit of late entry in his account.  It is not disputed that in this modern era all the accounts are maintained by the banks through computerized system and the entries with respect to the deposit and withdrawal are made immediately by electronic system upto the Head office of the bank.  Since the ATM card remains with the possession of complainant along with its secret number and nobody can withdraw any amount without secret code number. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the actual controversy involved in this case and committed grave error while accepting the complaint and as such the impugned order under challenge is  not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.” 

6.         The petitioner has contended that order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that State Commission has failed to appreciate that he had not withdrawn any amount from ATM on 02.10.2010 and the debit entry made on 14.10.2010 is without any justification.  The petitioner further contended that had the version of the opposite parties been correct, then the opposite parties in the ledger account would have shown debit entry as withdrawal of the amount from the ATM

7.         Counsel for the opposite parties on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.

8.         We have considered the rival contentions.  On perusal of the record, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order.  The respondents in their written statement had taken a categoric plea that on 02.10.2010, the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.3000/- from the ATM but due to technical fault the amount could not be debited to the saving account of the petitioner.  The petitioner in his evidence has failed to state in so many words that he did not withdraw Rs.3000/- form the ATM.  Therefore, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the opposite parties which is supported by the computerized ATM Log wherein it is recorded that on 02.10.2010 on 20.40.15 hours, a sum of Rs.3000/- was withdrawn by the petitioner form the ATM, as a consequence of which, after the debit of said amount, the remaining balance was Rs.26,712.09/-.  When we compare this with the passbook entry, it is seen that on 07.09.2010, a sum of Rs.4000/- was withdrawn from the account of the petitioner, leaving the balance of Rs.29,712.09/-, which balance tallies with the ATM log entry dated 02.10.2010.  Thus, under the circumstances, we do not find any fault in the impugned order of the state Commission which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.