Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/43

Shukdeo Mahto - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bank Of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar Bharti

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

Complainant Shukdeo Mahto has filed this case for a claim of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- .

2          The brief fact of the complaint petition is that on 02-07-2016 at 18:09 Hours complainant had used ATM Card of Bank of Baroda at the ATM Machine of State Bank Of India at Centre Market Bokaro Steel City for withdrawal Rs. 10,000/-  but the amount was not come out from the ATM machine due to some technical disorder in the machine but the slip was come out from the ATM machine together with a massage of debiting the amount of Rs. 10,000/- from his account on his mobile phone. Thereafter complainant has immediately informed the matter to ATM guard and wrote complaint on his complaint book. It is further stated that complainant has submitted the written complain before the bank of Baroda Customer Care vide Complain No. 201607027509 for imitating the amount had not come out from ATM machine and prayed to make payment of his deducted amount of his account but no payment has been made to him. Complainant had also written a letter to GM Bank of Baroda Sector-4, City Centre Bokaro, but there was no any relief. The complainant has sought some information from O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No.3 on which information complainants transaction no. 4559 in which CDM error device CCCDMFW status has been shown but the O.P. did not consider this matter in their reply. It is further stated that transition vide no. TXN NO. 4558 has also not completed due to some problem which in evident from perusal of E.J. Log. Further allegation of the complainant is that O.P. did not verify the complaint of the complainant from footage of CCTV and ATM guard and where his complaint was registered and denied to make payment.

3          Complainant has filed some document in support of his claim.

            Anx-1- Photo copy of complaint letter dated 03-07-2016

            Anx-2- Photo copy of letter to GM Bank of Baroda

            Anx-3- Photo copy of replay of RTI dated 17-01-2017 by O.P. No.2

            Anx-4- Photo copy of letter of SBI dated 18-01-2017 and

document Anx- 4/1

            Anx - 5 to 5/3 Copies of SBI RTI answer with documents.

            Anx-6- Photo copy of bank of pass book of the complainant

4          Complainant Shukdeo Mahto as evidence No.1 has been cross examined by O.P.

5          After issuance of notice O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 appeared and filed jointly vakalatnama and filed W.S. it is stated that this case is miss joinder and non joinder of the party hence liable to dismissed and it is barred by law of limitation. It is further stated that complainant has lodged a complaint on 03-07-2016  and this O.P. immediately take action and found that withdrawal is successful as per acquiring bank, hence there is any liability late for answering O.P. No.1 to O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No.3 after getting the complain immediately send a letter to the concern bank that is State bank Of India because the ATM of SBI ATM SINJ00246025 was used for transition. In this regard on 06-07-2016 SBI has send a NO AXESS CASH CERTIFICATE, regarding TXN No. 4559, amount Rs. 10,000/-  ATMIDSINJ000246025 and certified that as per general print/ electronic general print log/ a transition no. 2559 dated 02-07-2016 successful as per branch/ CIT/ATM replenishment cum cash verification record no. excess amount of cash it found on dated 03-07-2017 or next replenishment in said ATM NO. SINJ000246025 and it is there for prayed to dismissed the complain of the complainant.

6          O.P. No.3 is also present and filed his W.S. it is stated that this complain petition is not maintainable against this O.P. either in law or in facts hence liable to be dismissed and it is not related to O.P. No.3. it is further stated that bank of Baroda did not contact with the O.P. No.3 regarding complaint lodge by the complainant as because the bank of Baroda found that transition made by complainant was successfully completed and there is no any latches in the part of this O.P. it is further stated that during the course of error occurred through ATM card the bank of Baroda would have contacted with this O.P. for failure of transaction but till date bank of Baroda did not contacted  it is further stated that complainant was suspected that somebody has taken his withdrawal amount from ATM so he demanded the CCTV footage from the bank but he did not any FIR before the local police it is further stated that this O.P. has not committed any wrong as is falsely alleged and complainant has not got valid and subsisting cause of action of action for a present proceeding and it is liable for dismissal against the O.P. No.3

FINDINGS

7          We perused the record. Complainant is consumer and dispute is a Consumer Dispute and with in Time.

8          We perused the documents filed by O.Ps. and it appears that initially, the transaction was failed due to expiration of time for presentation by ATM machine and it was retracted back but after sometime machine had again excelled the money and then it was a successful one. From the facts it appears that Complainant did not lodged any complaint of the occurrence before police. But documents Anx-5 series are sufficient to gather the view regarding successful transaction and even after enquiry by S.B.I. no excess amount was found in the concerned ATM machine as per the report.

7          So, we don’t find any deficiency on the part of any O.Ps. and there is no cause of action and accordingly, the case is dismissed without merit.

            O/C is directed to deposit the record in the record room.