Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.08.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 60,000/- ( Rs. Sixty Thousand only ) including principal amount, as well as compensation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he is a bonafide subscriber of Canara Bank of Patna City Branch with saving account no. 3279 and has the ATM facility also ( Vide annexure – I ). It has been further asserted by the complainant that on 28.09.2006 he went to Patna City ATM transaction centre and completed entire process for transaction of Rs. 15,000/- but neither withdrawal slip came out nor cash was received. The complainant again tried for taking out Rs. 15,000/- but his transaction was declined. He attempted third time for taking out Rs. 10,000/- from that ATM centre but the same was also not successful ( vide annexure – II series ). The complainant thereafter came to the branch and stated the entire facts but he was assured that his grievance would be redressed very soon. The complainant thereafter filed a petition before Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Patna City as well as opposite party no. 3 for redressal of his grievance. However vide annexure – 6 and 7 he was informed by the Bank authorities that they are considering the fact mentioned in his application. It further transpires that vide annexure – 8 the Bank informed the complainant that on 28.09.2006 he has withdrawn money from the ATM as has been informed by enquiry section H.O. The complainant has also filed annexure – 9 and 10 requesting the authority to consider his grievance but vide annexure – 11 series he was informed by the Bank authority that he has withdrawn Rs. 15,000/- on 28.09.2006 at 15:53 vide serial no. 7320 while other attempts on the same time was declined by ATM centre as at the relevant time a person was allowed to take Rs. 15,000/- only per day and as the complainant in his first attempt had received Rs. 15,000/- from ATM centre. Hence the other request was declined.
The grievance of the complainant is that on 28.09.2006 despite his attempt he could not get Rs. 15,000/- from ATM centre but the same amount has been debited from his account.
It further transpires that on 12.07.2011 on the request of the complainant this forum directed the opposite party Bank to submit CCTV footage of the same but till today the same has not been provided to the forum by Bank authorities.
On behalf of opposite parties a written statement Has been filed. In Para – 6 of his written statementthe following facts have been asserted “ the complainant on 28.09.2006 at 15:53 made a transaction at the ATM centre of the Canara Bank Patna City Branch and his transaction was successful and he received Rs. 15,000/- from the ATM. The complainant again second time made a transaction at 15:56 on 28.09.2006 for Rs. 15,000/- but transaction declined with the remark “ DAILY WD LIMIT REACHED ” meaning thereby the daily withdrawal limit reached. The complainant again third time made a transaction on the same day 28.09.2006 at 15:57 for Rs. 10,000/- but the transaction declined by the ATM with the same remark “DAILY WD LIMIT REACHED”. It is stated and submitted further that the opposite party no. 2 in his letter dated 23.12.2006 addressed to the complainant has clearly stated on the basis of switch log of ATM that per day limit par card is Rs. 15,000/- only.”
On behalf of the complainant a Rejoinder has been filed repeating the same fact which has been narrated in the complaint petition.
-
We have narrated the entire facts asserted by both the parties. It is the case of the complainant that on 28.09.2006 he was not able to get a single Rupee from the ATM centre though he tried to take out Rs. 15,000/-.
It is also case of the complainant that on same day he attempted third time to get the money but the transaction was also declined. The Bank authorities have denied and asserted that the complainant was able to take out Rs. 15,000/- from ATM centre and his latter attempt was declined as at the relevant time the maximum withdrawal limit was Rs. 15,000/- per day.
In support of successful transaction, the opposite parties have annexed annexure – D and E which clearly prove that the complainant have withdrawn Rs. 15,000/- from the ATM concerned because the transaction was successful and as such the aforesaid amount stands debited from the account of complainant.
No tangible evidence has been brought on the record to prove that the aforesaid assertion of the Bank authorities is untrue.
So far CCTV footage is concerned, it goes without saying that the complainant had made transaction on 28.09.2006 while the authorities have been directed to produce the CCTV footage of the aforesaid transaction in 2011 i.e. after much delay of about five years and hence no adverse inferace can be drawn against opposite parties for not submitting CCTV footage.
For the discussion, made above we do not find any merit in this complaint and as such this complaint petition stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
