This case has been filed at DCDRC, Barasat, North 24 Parganas on 29.08.2017 by the Complainant alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the afore mentioned opposite parties.

Case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant being an account holder of State Bank of India, Kolkata Airport Branch being Account No. 20192288792 hold the ATM Card being No. 5196190093735910 in respect of the said account. On 08.03.2017 at about 08:33 A.M, the Complainant attempted to withdraw money from Kolkata Airport Terminal Building, ATM Booth for an amount of Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred) only but he failed to do so. Thereafter, the Complainant withdrew an amount of Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred) only from another ATM Counter situated at the same premises on the same date. It is stated in the petition of complaint that the Complainant went to the Kolkata Airport International Terminal Building ATM Booth on 18.03.2017 for withdrawal of the money and he was surprised to observe that an amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees nineteen thousand) only was withdrawn from his savings bank account without his knowledge on 08.03.2017 at 08:44 A.M. Thereafter, the Complainant informed the said matter to the State Bank of India Customer Care vide Complaint No. 3036284335 and subsequently the Complainant also informed the Branch Manager of State Bank of India Kolkata Airport Branch, the Opposite Party no. 1 and requested them to produce CCTV Footage of the relevant point of time of the said ATM Booth but Opposite Parties did not do the same.. It is further stated in the petition of complaint that State Bank of India Authority refused to investigate the matter inspite of several requests made by the Complainant. Finding no other alternatives, the Complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees nineteen thousand) only to the Complainant and to display the CCTV Footage of the concerned ATM Booth for the relevant point of time and he also prayed for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only.

 The Opposite parties have contested this case by filing their written version denying and disputing all the material allegations leveled against them stating that Opposite Party Bank is rendering service to the customers and is helping the customers from every difficulty. Similarly, the Complainant whenever reported regarding his complaint, the opposite party enquired into the matter and informed the Complainant that the entire banking transaction is now computerized and system generated and every action done by the customers are recorded and accordingly the transaction of the Complainant done on 08.03.2017 through ATM Machine was duly recorded. Opposite party has further stated that the Complainant suppressed the fact that two different ATM Cards were punched to withdraw money at the same ATM Booth and at about 08:33 A.M. on 08.03.2017, the ATM Card No. 4283 2007 0702 7187 was punched to withdraw the money for which the ATM Card No. 5195 1900 9373 5910 could not be punched at the same time on same date. The transaction made for withdrawal of Rs 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred) only by the ATM Card No.5196190093735910 on 08.03.2017 was successful. So, the allegation of the Complainant is not true. Accordingly, the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the case.

Points for determination

1. Is the Complainant a consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
2. Is there any deficiency in providing service to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reasons

Point nos. 1, 2 and 3

For the sake of convenience all the three points are taken up together for consideration and discussion.

On perusal of the record, it appears that the original case has been filed before the DCDRC, Barasat by the Complainant in person and the Complainant filed his evidence. The Complainant has not started his evidence on solemn oath in person as per provision u/s 38 (9)(b) & (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and read with Order XVIII of Civil Procedure Code. The Complainant has affixed an affidavit on the last page of the evidence in chief. So, this cannot be treated as evidence of the Complainant.

Thereafter, the Complainant engaged an Advocate who is conducting the case since 4^th November, 2022. Today this Commission has given opportunity for rectification of the lacuna in the evidence of the Complainant but the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant refused to avail the same and proceed with the argument of the case and filed BNA.

From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no evidence on behalf of the Complainant to prove his case. Neither the account number or pass book nor the ATM card have been produced by the Complainant as evidence in accordance to law. Moreover, the Complainant has not denied by adducing any cogent evidence that he does not possess two ATM Cards as alleged by the opposite parties in the case.  The Complainant has miserably failed to prove his own case by submitting any cogent and believable evidence.

Therefore, the case of the Complainant fails for want of cogent evidence.

Hence, it is,

Ordered

    that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar]
MEMBER