Hon'ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The Complainant Kush Pal is a customer/consumer of O.P.-1 of Central Bank Of India, Dakghora Branch, P.O.-Jotamari, Cooch Behar, having SB A/C No. 2965978896 and ATM Card No. 462244291934212. On 26.07.2018 at about 1.12 A.M. & 1.28 A.M. he used ATM card due to urgent money in the counter of O.P.-2 Syndic ate Bank, Siliguri, District-Darjeeling situated at Jalpaimore. Accordingly he pushed the ATM for withdrawing Rs. 10,000/- first time & second time Rs.5,500/-. But no money/cash came out from the ATM machine. So the complainant did not receive any cash but the complainant received SMS through his mobile that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- were debited from his account. Subsequently the complainant informed to the O.P.s but despite giving false assurance the O.P. did not credit the said sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. Therefore the complainant lodged a written complaint on 03.08.2018 to the O.P.-1 and the O.P. falsely assured him to show CCTV & J.P. log but did not do so. Accordingly, the complainant filed written complainant to O.P.-1 on 10.11.2018 and met with O.P.-2 with written complaint and also sent to the registered post. Despite receiving the said complaint the O.P.s did not do anything. The misdeeds of the O.P. amount to deficiency in service. The complainant therefore prayed for directing the O.P. to credit Rs. 15,000/- the account of the petitioner & Rs. 20,000/- in deficiency in service & mental pain, agony with a further cost of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.
The O.P. contested the case by filing written version denying each & every allegation of the complainant. The positive case of the O.P.-1 in brief is that the ATM card of the complainant is subject to some secret password which is kept to the complainant in his possession. If there was any withdrawal of money from the Syndicate Bank then only O.P.-2 is liable. O.P.-1 is not liable in this case. O.P.-1 is therefore prayed for dismissal of the case. The O.P.-2 also contested the case by filing W/V denying the major averments of the complaint.
The positive case of O.P-2 in a few words is that there is no cause of action & the case is not maintainable. The complainant has suppressed major facts. In case of any discrepancy in any ATM transactions, it should be communicated by the customer to the bank within 30 days, beyond which the bank has no liability. In the instant case the communication was made after 77 days. So the O.P.-2 is not liable to pay any compensation as it was informed after 110 days. The complainant did not follow the guidelines of RBI regarding the time limit set forth. The O.P.-2 therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
The respective cases of the parties driven this Commission to ascertain the following points.
Points for determination
- Whether complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service to the complainant by the O.P.s?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any, the complainant is entitled?
Decision with Reason
Point No.1.
The O.P.s did not challenge that the complainant is not a consumer. However in order to safeguard the analysis from any point, the essential aspect under the C.P. Act is taken for consideration & disposal.
The complainant claimed himself as a Consumer, Defence Case Projects that the O.P.s admitted that the complainant withdrawn the money from ATM Machine from O.P.-2 Syndicate Bank on 26.07.2018. Thereafter O.P.-1 also informed the matter to the Central Bank of India. Thus, the defence case appears to have not disclosed anything to come to any different finding than to hold that the complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Parties.
Issue-1 is thus decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2.
Previously, we have already held that the complainant is a consumer under the O.P. Bank. The O.P.-1 admitted in his W/V that the savings bank of the complainant is maintained by O.P.-1. It is also the admitted position that the complainant withdrawn the money on 26.07.2018 on the ATM Machine of O.P.-2 of Syndicate Bank, Jalpaimore Sliguri.
The W/V of O.P.-2 also discloses in Para-7 inter alia that the complainant went ot the ATM counter operated the ATM card. The minor inconsistency regarding the Pleading of the complainant & the averment in Para-7 in the W/V does not reduce the weight of the evidence led by the complainant.
So far as the Annexure-A is concerned the report reveals that transaction took place on 26.07.2018 for Rs. 10,000/- at Siliguri, Syndicate Bank in the name of the complainant. The J.P. log Comment is that “transaction successful” and the final remark of the request detail under the O.P. Bank Central Bank of India bearing No.2530460 is “cash not received”.
Annexure-B disclosed that the complaint raised by the complainant to the O.P. Bank, Branch Manager dt. 02.11.2018.
Ld. Defence Council argued that a complaint should be lodged within the statutory Period of 30 days as per the RBI guidelines. It may be that there is statutory limit for lodging the complaint as per the RBI guidelines but there is nothing to show that the said guidelines of RBI was within the knowledge of the complainant or it was informed to him at any point of time.
That apart the O.P. Company also did not reply to the complainant against his letter dt. 02.11.2018 that the said complaint is barred by limitation.
The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that there was no delay in lodging the complaint in as much as the transaction took place on 26.07.2018 and the complaint was lodged on 03.08.2018.
After perusing the Annexure-A, it transpires that the system AHD generated on 03.08.2018 at 5.33 p.m. depicts the remark “event occurred”.
Thus after assessing the entire oral & documentary evidence, it is crystal clear that the complainant inserted the ATM Card at the ATM kiosk for withdrawing money of Rs. 10,000/- & Rs. 5,500/- on the inauspicious day of 26.07.2018 at the counter of O.P.-2 bank with the ATM Card of O.P.-1 bank, but no money came out from the concerned machine.
Having perused the entire evidence of the respective parties it stands well proved that there was no latches on the part of the complainant for the loss sustained by him due to the said transaction. Due to the said unsuccessful transaction the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 10,000/- Plus Rs.5,500/- = Rs.15,500/- which tentamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the both O.P.-1 & O.P.-2, which demands for compensation for suffering mental pain & agony.
Thus after assessing the entire oral & documentary evidence & the O.P.s we are of the view that the complaint successfully proved the other Point No.2, 3 & 4.
Accordingly Points No. 2, 3 & 4 are answered in positive on behalf of the complaint.
Consequently, the complaint case succeeds on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case be & same is allowed on contest with cost. The complainant do get an award of Rs.15,500/- for refund of the case not withdrawn through ATM, Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service & mental pain & agony & Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost against the O.P. No.1. O.P. No.1 is directed to pay to the complainant a total sum of Rs.40,500/- as above within 1 (one), month from the date of passing the order failing which an interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded sum of money be paid from the date of passing order till the date of realization thereof.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the concerned party by hand / by Registered post with A/D forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
