SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

            The synopsis of the complaint case is the complainant has a Savings Bank Account being No. 36251604908 in the OP Bank from 16.11.2016 and he has also an ATM card for that A/C.  The complainant withdrew an amount of Rs. 10000/- by his ATM from his account and the balance was Rs. 18,678/- till that date. In this regard the complainant got a massage from the Bank. On 15.12.2017 the complainant again came to the ATM counter for withdrawing some money  but could not get the same as the balance amount in the ATM  was shown as Rs. 1,680/-. Then and there the complainant made the A/C up to-date, and found that on 14.12.2017 ten times money had been withdrawn from his Account by using Pay tm, although the complainant never used paytm. Then on 16.12.2017 the complainant lodged a complaint before the OP Bank stating  the facts and on return the OP advised the complainant to make mail to pay tm authority on 15.12.2017 which the complainant complied with but the Pay tm authority did not reply. Ultimately the complainant again and again made contact with the OP Bank for a redressal  but the Bank did not care to do anything for the complainant.

Hence, the instant case has been filed by the complainant with the prayers as made in the complaint petition  on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the OP Bank.

            The OP SBI Alangiri Branch has filed written version and denied all the material allegations made against them and claimed dismissal of the complaint on various grounds of law.

            The positive defense of this OP is that the complainant has alleged that on updating the Bank Passbook the complainant found that 10 times money has been withdrawn from his account by using Pay tm.  The Bank has stated in the written version that bank has no liability to make up the loss of the complainant as the money has been withdrawn by any third party due to some fault on the part of the complainant himself.

On such other grounds the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition.

            On the pleadings of the parties as above, the following issues need be considered (1) whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

Perused the complaint, the written version of the OP as well as the affidavit in chief of the complainant and questionnaires filed by the OP  and also the reply  thereof. Heard the ld advocates for the parties. Considered.

Undisputedly the complainant has an Account being No. 36251604908 in the OP Bank from 16.11.2016 and he has also an ATM card for that A/C. The allegation of the complainant that his money has been withdrawn by using Pay tm has been denied by the OP bank. The OP stated that the complainant had made up to date of his A/C and after doing so, he found that on 14.12.2017 ten times money has been withdrawn from his account by using Pay tm by any third party and money has been transferred from said account. The complainant has stated the same in paragraph 6 of the complaint .The OP bank denied their liability as complainant admitted that money has been withdrawn by using Pay tm by third party. The OP has further stated that OP has not done any deficiency in banking service.

The complainant has filed affidavit in-chief which nothing but replica of the complaint petition. The OP also cross-examined the complainant by putting nine questions which the complainant gave reply.

We have perused the materials on record very carefully.

In this connection we want to refer a decision dated 07.04.2011 passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, New Delhi where it was observed “it was not at all possible to withdraw money from the Account of the complainant through ATM by any person other than him. Similar  principles has been laid down  in the aforesaid case and when it is admitted by the complainant that money has been withdrawn through Pay tm, the principle of law will be applicable in this case also. We find that there is neither any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OP Bank nor did the OP indulged in any unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. The case has no merit at all and should be dismissed.

Both the points are answered accordingly.   

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/29 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP Bank.

Parties do bear their respective cost.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.