BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.1of 2014
Date of Institution : 1.1.2014
Date of Decision : 1.6.2016
Sandeep Kumar c/o Ashoka Medical Hall, Jain Market, Sirsa, tehsil and Distt. Sirsa
……Complainant.
Versus.
- The Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Nathursari Chopta Branch (Sirsa.
- State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sirsa, tehsil and distt. Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SH.RAJIV MEHTA……….. ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Rattan Ganeriwala, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief is that he was having his account bearing no.65024826083 in State Bank of Patiala, Nathusari Chopta i.e. with opposite party no.1 and he has also been issued ATM on this account. On 13.7.2012, when the complainant made transaction for withdrawal of Rs.5000/- at the ATM of State Bank of India, JCD Vidyapeeth, Sirsa at 13.44 hours, the amount was not drawn out, rather the same was debited in his account. The complainant immediately made a telephonic complaint to Op no.1 and thereafter, also moved applications on dated 16.7.2013 and 5.8.2012 and served legal notice, but op no.1 did not pay any heed. OP no.2 also did not take any action. Hence, the present complaint.
2. The bank i.e. the opposite party, filed its reply by pleading that there is no fault, negligence or deficiency in service on its part because as per bank records, the alleged transaction on 13.7.2013 at 13.44 hours was complete and successful. Moreover, the op no.1 had cleared all the doubts of the complainant in reply to legal notice served by the complainant. The Op no.1 had taken all required needful steps to redress the grievance of complainant showing the records on the alleged date and time..
3. Case of opposite party no.2 is that the complainant is the consumer of op no.1. The complainant never informed or intimated about the alleged incidence and at no point of time moved any application. If the complainant would have given the information about the alleged incident, then the CC TV Footage from the concerned ATM would have been scrutinized within one months of alleged incident. It is further pleaded that on receipt of summons, answering respondent enquired into the said matter and found that the said transaction was successful and matter was also enquired from the Currency administration Cell, which clarified that no cash excess was found in the said ATM ID S10A00719008 for the TXN No.2006 dt. 13.7.2013 for Rs.5000/-.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1 to Ex.C14; whereas the opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R1 and Ex.R2-affidavits and Ex.R2/A to Ex.R2/C.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is an admitted fact that the transaction was made on 13.7.2013 for Rs.5000/-. As per the case of the complainant, Rs.5000/- were not received by him from the ATM machine, rather the same were shown to be debited in his account. He immediately made complaints to his banker i.e. op no.1 telephonically as well as by moving applications, but no action was taken. This fact is clear from the documents Ex.C5 and Ex.C6. In our view, when the complaints were made by the complainant to his banker i.e. op no.1, it was its responsibility to trace out the record of concerned ATM of SBI. It was also its responsibility to make the correspondence with op no.2 to show the CCTV footage of concerned ATM, but they failed to do so as nothing has been placed on record by opposite party no.1 to establish that efforts were made by it to redress the grievance of the complainant, who is its customer. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1. On the other hand, Op no.2 has no role or concern with the present complaint because no information or intimation was sent to it either by the complainant or by the opposite party no.1 regarding failure of said transaction. However, it is pertinent to mention here that learned counsel for the complainant has cited the ruling titled SBI Vs. Subhasis Chowdhury, Revision Petition no.545 of 2013 decided on 18.2.2015, but the same is not identical to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. Resultantly, the present complaint stands allowed. Only Op no.1 is hereby directed to pay the said amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. The complainant is also hereby awarded compensation Rs.15000/- for his harassment, mental tension etc. and litigation expenses Rs.3300/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced. President,
Dated: District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
