Delhi

East Delhi

CC/244/2013

DINESH KHANNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF PATIYALA - Opp.Party(s)

21 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 244/13

 

Shri Dinesh Khanna

S/o Shri D.D. Khanna

R/o H. No. 299-D, Pocket-2

Mayur Vihar, Delhi – 110 091                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

State Bank of Patiala

Branch Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092

 

State Bank of India

Connaught Circus, New Delhi                                          ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 11.04.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 18.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 21.04.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Dinesh Khanna, the complainant against State Bank of Patiala(OP-1)  and State Bank of India (OP-2).

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has his saving bank account bearing no. 30042513919 with OP-2, i.e. State Bank of India for which he was issued debit card.  On 16.11.2012, at 5.30 p.m., the complainant received message from OP-2 that Rs. 10,000/- had been withdrawn from Jamalpur, Bihar.  It is stated that the said transaction was done from the ATM of OP-1 i.e. State Bank of Patiala.  It is further stated that OP-1 has not provided the CCTV footage and the said amount has been fraudulently withdrawn from his account for which he has registered police complaint.

          Complainant has annexed complaint dated 17.11.2012 received by OP-2 on 19.11.2012, 24.11.2012 and 26.11.2012 and order dated 24.12.2012 passed by the banking ombudsman.

3.       OPs filed their reply after they were served with the notice of the present complaint.  Reply was filed by OP-1, wherein they stated that the said transaction of Rs. 10,000/- was successful which was upon use of card and pin and they had supplied the footage of inbuilt camera in ATM to the complainant, thus they could not be held liable for deficiency in services.

          OP-2 in their reply stated that the complainant was in possession of ATM card and he had the exclusive knowledge of the PIN, as admitted by the complainant in his letters dated 17.11.2012 and 26.11.2012, that he had withdrawn Rs. 2,000/- from ATM of OP-1, State Bank of Patiala and had also taken the mini-statement from the said ATM and has not filed transaction slip.  Copy of letter showing that Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant on 16.11.2012 at 17:19:11 hrs. from ATM (1) of State Bank of Patiala, Patparganj and transaction was successful and Rs. 2,000/- were withdrawn by the complainant on 16.11.2012 at 17:19:52 hrs. from ATM (2) of State Bank of Patiala, Patparganj and transaction was again successful. 

It was stated that 2 ATM machines were installed in the same cabin of State Bank of Patiala.  It was also stated that as per letter dated 20.12.2012 sent by OP-1, the said transaction was successful and no excess cash was found.  Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.  OP has annexed mail from Manager of OP-1 as Annexure OP2/1, letter from OP-1 dated 20.12.2012 as Annexure OP2/3, Statement of account of the complainant as Annexure OP2/3.   

4.       Complainant filed an affidavit stating that he had received an SMS regarding withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from ATM S10KS00750002 with transaction ID 6418.

          OP-2 examined Shri Rajiv Prakash, Branch Manager, SBI, Connaught Circus, who narrated the contents of their reply on oath and exhibited annexure, annexed with the complaint.

5.       We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and OPs.  Ld. Counsel for OP-2 has stated that the transaction for            Rs. 10,000/- was successful as per Annexure OP2/1, thus, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of OP-2.  We have perused the documents placed on record, which reveal that the complainant had withdrawn   Rs. 2,000/- from ATM 2 of State Bank of Patiala i.e. OP-1 at 17:19:52 hrs. on 16.11.2012 and Rs. 10,000/-, the disputed amount was withdrawn from ATM1 of OP-1 at 17:19:11 hrs.  Status of both transactions was successful.  Both ATM1 and ATM2 are installed in same cabin.  OP-1 has also stated that there was no excess cash certificate as per EJ log. 

          The complainant has not filed any transaction slip to show that which ATM he had used to withdraw money and mini statement.  The complainant has filed the SMS received by him, where it is written that transaction was at Jamalpur but ATM ID no. S10K500750002, which is in Delhi as per reply of Op-1 and OP-2.  Detailed investigation and trial is required to ascertain when ATM is situated in Delhi, how message stating successful withdrawal from Jamalpur was received by the complainant.  This disputed question of fact cannot be decided in summary proceedings under Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed for want of adjudication.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                        (SUKHDEV SINGH)

       Member                                                          President