Hon’ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The Complaint petition in a nutshell is that the complainant, Smt Laxmi Paul W/o. Mr. Uttam Kr. Paul resident of Vill- Chilakhana (Paul Para) P.S- Tufanganj, Dist.:- Cooch behar. She is a consumer of Canara Bank, Tufanganj Branch P.S:-Tufanganj, Dist:- Cooch Behar having a S/B account No:- 4098118000168 and ATM card No:- 4601334098009564.On 26.03.22 she went to the ATM counter of State Bank of India, Tufanganj Branch , P.S.- Tufanganj, Dist:- Cooch Behar for urgent need of money and punched her above said card to withdraw Rs.10000/- and received the same amount from the counter. She further punched her card second time on the same date to withdraw Rs.20000/- but she did not receive the amount. Thereafter she punched her card for third and fourth time to withdraw Rs.10000/- each time and received the amount of Rs.20000/-. But on updating of passbook of the said account it was seen by the complainant that a sum of Rs.40000/- was debited from her S/B account although she received a sum of Rs.30000/- only from the above said transactions. The matter was informed to the opposite parties with no lapse of time and OPs assured the complainant that the amount of Rs.10000/- would be credited to her S/B account within short period. Subsequently, the complainant filed a written complainant before the O.P.-1 on 04.05.22 and later she went to the office of the OPS several times and tried to file a written complainant before the OPS but they did not receive the same. Ultimately she sent the written complainant to the OPS through registered post on 22.06.2022 and they did not reply the same till date . The Complainant also requested the OPs to show CCTV forage and J.P. Log of the said trasaction. But they did not show it. These activities of the OPS are clearly deficiency in service on the parts of the OPS due to which the complainant suffered financial loss, alleged by the complainant. As a last resort, the complaint filed this case before the Commission for redressal of her grievances with the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Tufanganj Branch as the Op1 and Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tufanganj Branch as the O.P.2 . The Cause of action of the case arose on 26.03.22 when the OPs deducted Rs.10000/- illegally and on 04.05.22 and 22.06.22 when the complainant filed written complaint and still continued. He prayed for a direction to the OPS to pay Rs.10000/- with upto date interest and Rs.40000/- for deficiency in service as well as mental pain and Rs.10000/- for cost of litigation.
Summons were served upon the OPS. Both OPS contested the case by filing w/v evidence on affidavit and written argument. It was admitted by the OP-1 that they maintained the S/B account of the complainant and issued ATM card mentioned in the complaint petition in fovour of her. In his defence plea, the OP1 stated that on basis of verbal complainant on 04.05.22 by the complainant i.e after lapse of 40 days we come to know about incident of ATM but the complainant did not provide actual date and location of ATM counter. But on the basis of the Complaint, the OP1 referred the matter to the OP2 vide registered CCR complaint No ( CRM): CRMO 20422012342726655 and DP code 4098 on the same date mentioning TXN Ref. No 20220326133600015759 along with ATM card No :- 4601334098009564 issued by the OP1.Thereafter, the OP1 suggested to register a written complaint before the concerned bank i.e OP2. On receipt of a complaint through registered post from the complainant in the first week of July2022, the OP1 again referred matter to the withdrawing bank i.e OP2 on the same date. The CCTV footage and J.P. Log of the said transactions as asked for by the complainant to be produced were maintained by the OP2. So it was not under the jurisdiction of the OP1.Therefore, theOP1 had no liability towards the complainant regarding the said transactions. So this complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with cost, claimed by the O.P.1. The OP2 stated that the complainant submitted a letter dt.21.06.222 to the OP1 regarding the amount which had not been received by her. The Complt. did not mention any ATM ID and specific area from where she withdrew money by using ATM Card. So, without any description of ATM, the OP2 could not trace out the said transaction. Moreover, the OP2 maintained two ATM having ATM ID:- SINB011382002 and SINB0113802001 in Tufanganj sub-Division under Cooch Behar District. Other ATMs in Tufanganj were maintained by SBI Cooch behar Branch. So if the Complainant used her card other than two ATMs mentioned above then the OP2 was not liable to any dispute arising out of that ATMs. As the Complainant was unable to supply any transaction ship nor any ATM ID so the OP2 could not produce any EJ Log, J.P. Log and CCTV footage of the said transaction. Thereafter, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with sufficient cost.
The OP2 submitted a J.P. Log of the said transaction in course of oral argument. The Ld. Advocates for the O.P.2 submitted that there was a suppression of fact regarding the aforesaid transactions. He also argued that there were five transactions out of which the 2nd transaction which was of Rs.20000/- was unsuccessful . He also showed the J.P. Log which reveals the exact date and time of transaction with denomination of currency notes dispensed in each transaction. It also reveals that whether the transaction was successful or not. The 2nd transaction shows unsuccessful with response code. 089 which also coincides with the Complainant’s claim. Other three transaction were also successful with response code 000 which complainant claims to be successful. But there is a suppression of fact regarding 5th transaction which the complainant did not disclose in her complaint petition, alleged by the O.P.2. On the other hand, the J.P. Log reveals that there was another transaction of Rs10000/- with response code 0000. Thus, there were four successful transaction of Rs10000/- each for which Rs.40000/- were deducted from the account of the complainant. Therefore, the amount of Rs.40000/- which was deducted from the S/B account of the complainant was just and correct. So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.2. Hence, the complainant petition is liable to be dismissed with sufficient cost as the complainant has wasted valuable time of the Commission as well as the OPs, claimed by the O.P.2 in his oral argument.
On perusing the pleadings and document submitted by the both parties and hearing argument advanced by both parties, the commission wants to ascertain whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops which leads the complainant to suffer from financial and mental pain and agony. Therefore the following points is required to be dismissed at length to reach a conclusion about the fate of the case.
Point for consideration
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs or not
Point No.1.
The Complainant, Mrs. Laxmi Paul tried to withdraw some money on 26.03.22 by using her ATM card No :- 4601334098009564 ( Anex-2) for which she punched her card four times in the ATM of the O.P.2. Out of the four transactions, the 2nd one for Rs.20000/- was unsuccessful and rest three were successful transaction of Rs.10000/- each. Thus, she received Rs.30000/- out of her four transactions on the same day but account statement of her S/B account ( Anex-1) shows deduction of Rs.40000/- on the same day. She filed a written complaint before the O.P-1 on 04.05.22 ( Anex-3) She again filed written complaint through registered post on 22.06.22 before the O.P.1 & O.P-1 (Anex. 4&5). She also requested the OPs to show CCTV footage and J.P. Log of the said transactions. On the basis of the complaint made on 04.05.22, the O.P.1 referred the matter to the O.P.2 having complaint No:-CRM020422012342726655 on the said date. The O.P.1 further referred the matter to the O.P-2, the withdrawing bank on receipt of a complaint in first week of July 2022 on the same date. As the O.p.1 is only the custodian of the S/B account of the complainant, the J.P. Log and CCTV footage of the said transaction do not fail within their jurisdiction . It is the withdrawing bank under whose jurisdiction J.P. Log and CCTV footage fail. So, the O.P.2 was told to produce the J.P. Log of the said transaction and CCTV footage at the time of said transaction before the commission. The O.P.2 in their evidence on affidavit and written argument expressed inability to produce J.P. Log and CCTV footage at the time of transaction as the complainant could not file transaction ship[ and ATM of the said transactions. But during oral argument, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. 2 produced J.P. Log of the said transaction wherein he mentioned about 5th transaction of Rs10000/- which was successful. The J.P. Log also reveals the date time and number of notes dispensed at the transaction and the transaction was successful which the complainant did not disclose in her complaint petition.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant filed a web copy of judgment of NCDRC in revision petition of State Bank of India Vs Samsar Chand Kapoor & Another wherein CCTV footage supplied by the withdrawing bank, Punjab National Bank was shown to the Complainant and his son-in-law but a copy of the same was not supplied to the Complainant as requested by him. The quality of the said footage was very poor and there was mismatch of timing of the said footage and timing recorded by the ATM. Therefore, the Hon’ble NCDRC directed to set aside the order of the District and State Commission to the extent of refund of Rs.10000/- to the complainant and rest order was upheld by the Apex court without relying on the CCTV footage. The CCTV footage is considered to be a reliable factor when its quality is upto the mark. Moreover, there is no compulsion of CCTV footage to be produced before the commission in that order of Apex court in case of ATM dispute. On the other hand, the J.P. Log is the authentic source to solve ATM dispute mainly in case of non-dispensation of cash. In this instant case, the O.P.2 supplied the J.P. Log of the said transaction wherein it reveals that on 26.03.222 there were five transaction. Out of five transactions 2nd transaction was unsuccessful but rest four transaction were successful of Rs.10000/- each. Thus, the debit of Rs.40000/- from the Complainant’s account was justified. Hence it is proved that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Consequently, the instant case fails on contest.
Hence it is
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website
www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
