Hon'ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The Complaint petition in brief is that the Complainant, Mr. Bikramaditya Datta punched his ATM Card in the ATM of Central Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch, B.S. Road, Dist.- Cooch Behar (OP) with which he had a savings bank account, along with ATM Card for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/-. He performed all steps for the same but machine was stopped and no money came out from the machine. On the other hand, he received a message of debit of Rs.20,000/- from his SB Account in his mobile phone instantly. Subsequently he informed the incident to OP and was assured by the OP to have credited the disputed amount within seven days. On the very next day i.e. 26.06.2018 OP Bank issued a request detail in which it was shown as a successful transaction. The Complainant requested the OP Bank to show the CCTV footage and JP Log of the ATM Machine several times but OP Bank did not pay heed to his request. Then the Complainant filed a written compliant before the OP Bank on 18.07.2018 but OP Bank did not reply to that complaint. On 30.08.2018 the Complainant appeared before the office of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar for mediation. Mediation was fixed on 17.09.2018 and on that date mediation was not possible as the Complainant was not present due to his wife’s illness. The Bank’s representative was requested to present on the next date of mediation on 09.10.2018 along with CCTV footage and JP Log of the ATM Machine. On 09.10.2018 both parties appeared but Bank’s representative sought more time to collect the abovesaid documents. The Complainant agreed to the proposal of the Bank’s representative and the next date was fixed on 15.11.2018. On the next date of mediation i.e. 15.11.2018, the Complainant appeared for mediation but bank’s representative did not turned up for the same. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed this instant case for redressal of his grievance. He prayed for a direction to the OP to credit the disputed amount of Rs.20,000/- in his account and to pay Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service, mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.
Summon was served upon the OP Bank. The OP Bank contested the case by filing W/V, evidence on affidavit and written argument. The plea of the OP Bank is that on receipt of the complaint from the Complainant they informed the Zonal Office, Central Bank of India, Kolkata about the incident of non-dispensation of cash from the ATM but they stated the said transaction as successful, which they wanted to prove by a document sent by Help Desk of the Central Bank of India. As the transaction was successful, so there was no question of refund of the same amount to the Complainant and at the same time no question of deficiency in service arises.
On perusal of the case record and all documents filed by the Complainant and the OP and hearing pleading of the both parties, under-mentioned points are required to be determined.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of OP?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint petition?
Point No. 1:-
The Complainant informed the matter of non-dispensation of cash from the ATM of OP Bank after punching the ATM Card of the same bank verbally and through written mode. On repeated request and submission before the OP, he brought to light a document on 18.07.2018 titled “request details” in which it was stated that said transaction was successful. Again OP Bank was requested to show CCTV footage and JP Log of ATM Machine during mediation in Consumer Affairs Department and argument by the Complainant. Ld. Advocates of the OP Bank assured the Commission to submit JP Log on 31.08.2022 but he submitted a document titled “request details” which was issued by the Help desk of Central Bank of India, not JP Log on the same date. The role of JP Log in the case of non-dispensation of cash is vital. When there is a problem in communication equipments or hardware, ATM is not able to complete transactions as instructed by the switch. So the transactions need reconciliation – reconciliation between what actual carried out is recorded in the JP Log. So if the JP Log was supplied by the OP Bank, the Commission could have reached a firm conclusion regarding whether that transaction was successful or not. OP Bank neither supplied the JP Log to the Commission nor did he refund the disputed amount to the Complainant. Therefore the Commission is of the view that there is a gross deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank.
So, the Point No.1 is answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2 :-
In the aforesaid Point No.1, the Commission is of the view that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank, which caused the Complainant to suffer from mental pain and agony. Therefore the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the complaint petition.
So this Point No.2 is answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the Complainant.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant Case No. CC/104/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.
The OP Bank is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant for the disputed amount. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service, mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this Order failing which the entire awarded sum shall carry an interest @ 6% p.a. till realization.
Let a 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.
