Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/118

Sri Simadri Srinivas Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, S.B.I., Gunupur, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

C.C. Case No.118/ 2015

               

P R E S E N T

 Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                             Member

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,LL.B.                                           Member

 

Sri Simadri Srinivas Rao, S/o late S.Ganeswar Rao, Resident of Main Road, Gudari, Po/Ps Gudari,Dist. Rayagada.                                               ………….Complainant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank India, Gunupur..
2. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Rayagada.
3. Zonal   Manager, State Bank of India, Berhampur.

                                                                                …….Opp.Parties

For the complainant: In person

For the Ops : Sri P.Ch. Dash and Associates Advocate, Rayagada.

                                                   JUDGMENT

                   The brief facts of the complaint is that    complainant is a customer of O.P. No.1 vide SBI account No.11116626107  having facility to withdraw money  through ATM .  On 3.3.2015 the complainant withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM  but the  ATM machine did not respond and  the complainant  did not get any cash and he immediately reported the matter to the security guard and the complainant  tried in the another  ATM counter and withdrawn Rs.5,000/-  but to his utter surprise the complainant noticed that a sum of Rs.10,000/- which he tried earlier was debited from his account and he received only Rs.5,000/- .The complainant reported the matter  to the bank authorities but there is no response from their side.. Hence prayed to direct the Ops  to refund  the amount  of Rs.10,000/-  and award compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation and aware such other relief. Hence, this complaint.

                   On being notice, the O.ps appeared and filed their counter separately denying  the allegations of the complainant.  It is submitted by the OP 1  that the complainant is a customer of the O.P 1 bearing Account No.11116626107 . The ATM EJ Log  of the ATM Counter of Venkataswer Lodge, Rayagada shows that in fact the complainant had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from the ATM Counter at Venkataswer Lodge, Rayagada on 3.3.15 at 11.03 A.M and again Rs.5,000/- on the same day at 11.06 A.M and it shows that the transaction was successful. All the ATM transactions are reflected automatically and immediately  in the electronic journal and the said journal is maintained at the E.J centre at Mumbai. The E.G.code-000 in the E.G.Log indicates that the transaction was successful and the ATM was not defective and  the that the money of Rs.10,000/-  and Rs.5,000/- was duly received  by the complainant. The complainant has not made any such written complaint to the Bank authorities nor he   reported the matter to the Police, in such case the police would have investigated the matter. In view of the above there is no deficiency of service on the part of the  Ops  and the Ops are not liable to pay any compensation or costs and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint  with costs.

                                                    FINDINGS

                   We have gone through the records and documents filed by the parties and also heard the  arguments . The  allegations of the complainant  is that  he has withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM counter   but he did not receive any amount and the amount was debited from his account. But the Ops denied the allegations of the complainant  stating that the complainant has  withdrawn the amount  and as per the ATM EG Log  the transaction was successful and the complainant has received the amount.            

                   We heard argument from both the parties. In support of his argument, the complainant  has filed  copy  ATM withdrawal slip . From the statement of account relating to the savings bank account it is evident that  an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been debited  from the account but  the complainant  but the Ops    have not furnished any document  that how much money was kept in the ATM machine  and how much money remains unused through the said ATM machine. In this context  it is held that  the bank is the public utility service and when ATM machine is running under the control of the concerned bank originated from the main office  Mumbai  obviously they have to maintain separate register in this regard and if the said register be placed  for appreciation  of the truth would come out  whether actually the amount in question was withdrawn by the complainant  after punching his ATM card  and  if not function properly due to the fault of the machinery or any kind of reason thereof, there must be report to maintain by the SBI, Rayagada .  It is pertinent to mention that the  OPs did not come forward to contest the case denying the allegation as made by the complainant.                  

                   We have relied  the decision of Hon ’be West Bengal State Commission, Kolkata vide Case No.FA/127/2010 reported in 2011 CJ 189(WB) State Bank of India Vrs. Hariom Tiwari and another wherein  the Hon’ble State Commission, WB  has held  that        “Banking and financial services – ATM – Deficiency in service - Money not disbursed from ATM machine but transaction shown as successful- No document submitted by the Ops as to how much money was kept in ATM machine-  No reply made by OP against the complaint raised by the complainant – Impugned judgment passed by District upheld- Appeal dismissed.”

                    In  view of the aforesaid discussion and  decision of the Apex Court   we hold  that the action of the O.p bank are deficient in their service  for which they are  liable to refund  the amount to the account of the complainant.  Hence, it is  ordered.

ORDER

           The Opposite Parties   are liable  to refund /credit   Rs.10,000/-  with interest as per bank norms to the account of the complainant from the date of its withdrawal   to till the date of payment   within 15 days of receipt of this order , failing which they are liable to pay 12% interest.   There shall be no order as to  cost and compensation. Parties to bear their own cost.

                   Pronounced in open forum today on this 12^th day of April,2017 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

                   Member                                                       President I/c