DATE OF FILING : 19.12.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 09.03.2014
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 11.09.2015.
Vijay Shankar Shaw,
son of Ram Kewal Shaw,
25/1, Netaji Subhas Road,
P.S- Liluah, Howrah-711204………..……………………………………Complainant.
1. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India,
Howrah Maidan Branch, 18, G. T. Road (S),
P.S. & District Howrah-711101.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Howrah Railway Station Br.
District-Howrah-(Old complex),
PIN 711101.. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the failure in withdrawing money from the ATM of SBI amounting Rs. 10,000/- dated 5/07/2014, the instant application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 was filed before this Forum vide complaint case number CC 649 of 2014 by Shree Vijay Shankar Shaw , S/o. Sri Ram Kewal Shaw, resident of 25/1, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S. Luluah, District-Howrah 711204, against the O.P.s NO. 1 i.e. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Howrah Maidan Branch, 18 G.T. Raod and O.P. 2 i.e the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Howrah Railway Station Branch, District-Howrah-711101 praying for the following reliefs :
- Directing O.P. to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.
- Amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and mental agony or such amount as the learned Forum deem fit and proper.
- An amount of Rs. 10000/- towards cost of proceedings.
- Any other relief to which the complainant is entitled in law and equity.
- Matrix of the Case.
The complainant having a saving A/c No. 11512965105 with O.P. no. 2, S.B.I., Howrah Railway Station Branch, having debit card facilities being No. 6220180570200089219 and collected pin No. from O.P. No. 2 for enjoying the ATM facility.
On 05.07.2014 the complainant was decided to withdraw money from the nearest ATM (terminal No. F20NO11301 of O.P. No. 1 )
The complainant inserted the said debit card and placed his pin and within a fraction of second massage flashed in the screen ,’ ‘pin code is incorrect.” And he pushed the ‘cancel button’. But it was not functioning. Then he left the ATM.
After a lapse of 15 to 20 minutes the complainant visited terminal No. F20NO11301 of O.P. No. 1 and withdraw Rs. 500/- for the first time. There the complainant noticed that Rs. 10000/- has been illegally withdrawn from the same savings A/c number which was reflected in Xerox copy of the pass book enclosed to the petition.
The complainant being disappointed approached to the Howrah police station vide G.D. Entry No. 516 dated 05.07.2014. Even the complainant under the R.T.I. Act,2005 wanted video footage from the O.P. NO. 1 . but failed. Necessary formalities i.e. notice was served on the Opposite parties since 28.01.2015 but O.P. did not care even to honour Consumer Protection Act,1986. Here the question arises whether there is any deficiency on the part of the o.ps. ?
3. In spite of service of summons the o.ps. did not appear in the case and the case is heard exparte against them.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- In support of his case the petitioner who is also a ld. counsel of the Howrah District appeared before the Forum with an affidavit stating facts that he inserted his ATM Card in the ATM Machine but filed twice and he cancelled also and on both the occasions the machine showing that PIN number was wrong. Later on after some time when he came again before the same machine and placed the card he was successful in getting Rs. 500/- and from the ATM receipt he found that Rs. 10,000/- was already withdrawn from his saving bank account even though he was unsuccessful in getting money previously. He informed the matter to the police as well as the bank who paid not heed to him and Rs. 10,000/- was debited from his savings bank account even though he failed in his attempt to get the money from ATM. The petitioners approached the Cyber Crime Cell, Howrah. That the o.ps. treating the case in a very casual manner. The petitioner on 08.2.2014 filed an application before the bank under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 seeking video footage but the o.p. neglected to supply video footage as a legal practitioner. The petitioner somehow adjusted his time visited the o.p. office for number of times and simply incurred financial loss and then filed this case as the o.p. bank with the intention to suppress their fault willfully did not supply the video footage. The transaction took place on 05.07.2014 and the petitioner pressed for the video footage on 08.08.2014.
- It is true that the petitioner inserted his ATM Card at the ATM Machine and also he pressed the PIN number which was within his knowledge but he failed in the transaction and within a few minutes when he left the place the transaction got completed, as he came to know from a second transaction after a few minutes. Upto this everything was in the court of the petitioner but when he pressed for the footage report from the authority they did not bother or rather neglected to supply the same to the petitioner who lawfully applied before them for the same and the o.p. also did not bother appear before the Forum and to place the footage and such acts on the part of the o.ps. proved their deficiency in service for which they are liable to pay for the loss of the petitioners amounting to Rs. 10,000/- as well as pay compensation to him and also cost of proceeding. The evidences placed before the Forum by the petitioner went unchallenged and there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the petitioner who succeeded in proving his case exparte.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 649 of 2014 ( HDF 649 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed exparte with costs against the o.ps.
The petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as deducted from his account and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs.
The O.Ps. are directed to pay the above sum within 30 days from the date of this order failing his awarded sum would carry interest @ 9% per annum and also the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( A.K. Pathak )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
