Orissa

Jajapur

CC/77/2016

Manamohan Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager ,SBI,Jajpur Town - Opp.Party(s)

Biraja Prasad Barik,Bishnu Charan Dalai

17 Nov 2017

ORDER

 IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                          Dated the 17th day of November,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 77 of 2016

Manamohan Sahoo , S/O Dillip Ku.Sahoo

Vill/P.O. Katikata ,  P.S.Mangalpur   

 Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.The Branch Manager, S.B.I,Jajpur Town, At/P.O/Dt.Jajpur  

2,The Branch Manager,Allahabad Bank, At/P.O/P.S. Mangalpur  

Dist.-jajpur.                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                                                                                            

For the Complainant:                            Sri Biraja Prasad Barik ,Sri B.Ch.Dalai, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1                      None

For the Opp.parties; No.2                       Sri G.Ch.Panda, Miss B.R.Rout,Advocates.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   17.11.2017.

SHRI PITABAS MOHANTY, MEMBER

            Briefly stated   the complaint’s  case is  that the complainant is an  account holder of the O.P.no.1 bearing A/C No.31116267523  The complainant   used to withdraw money from the ATM  through his  ATM card.  It is alleged by the complainant that on 02.07.16 the complainant wanted to withdraw Rs.3,200/- from the ATM  of O.P.no.2  located at Mangalpur but it was unsuccessful for the current problem . Subsequently  the complainant for 2^nd time in same ATM  withdraw  Rs3200/- where as the balance sheet shows that withdrawal of money  is Rs.6,400/ .  Hence the complainant lodged the complain before the O.ps  for 6 to 10 times to  return back his money .  Thereafter the O.Ps  negativated the grievance of the complainant.

            Accordingly finding no other way the complainant wrote  an  application to B.M ,Allahabad Bank  of O.P.no.2  on dt.22.7.16 for production of C.C.T.V  footage  on that withdrawal moment but even   after one month , the O.P.no.2  had not taken any  steps regarding production of C.C.T.V  footage . Further more the complainant sent a pleader’s notice to O.P.no.2 Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank  on dt.25.8.16 for an amicable settlement . but no reply come from the said bank . On the other hand the complainant is a working as technician in Tata Steel ,Jajpur Road ,Duburi . The complainant has lost of Rs  4,000/-  due to absence in the  company regarding the said problem.

Accordingly the complainant  approached this forum claiming compensation of Rs20,000/- towards deficiency of  service and to direct the O.Ps to realise Rs.3,200 /- in his favour .

            On being noticed the O.P.no.1 did not choose to contest the dispute.  Hence O.P.No.1  has been set exparte vide order dt.03.5.17 . The O.P.no..2 appeared through his learned  advocate  and filed his written version  denying the allegation made in the complaint petition and inter alia pleaded that this case is not maintainable . That the petitioner is not at all a  customer of the bank he has no account with the Allahabad  Bank nor a ATM card  holder of the Allahabad Bank . The petitioner can  never be treated as a consumer under the O.P.no.2 . It is true  to say that the complainant pushes his ATM card  and has switched  the bottom of  cash withdrawal of money Rs.3,200 it is false to state that at the time of cash processing of money electric current was cut off suddenly and the complainant could not  received his money   as the matter of fact as per ATM  transaction dt.02.7.16 the complainant’s  drawal was successful . It can not  be believe that the complainant has not received  the said amount .

            That it is true to say that for  the 2^nd time the petitioner got withdrawal Rs. 3200/-  from the said ATM cabin  . It is false to say that Rs6,400 /- was wrongly cut of  from the  main balance. The complainant has no proof  to the contrary   that the 2^nd transaction is as per admission of the complainant was successfully  made.  The 1^st transaction is presumed  to have been successfully                   made . The complainant  has actually received Rs. 6,400/ as per transaction list of ATM . It is  false to say that the complainant has gone to Allahabad Bank, Mangalpur  6 to 10 times  for getting his withdrawal money . That The C.C.T.V footage can not be  given to any  party or to any outsider  .The C.C.T.V  footage  can only be given if asked for by any investigating   agency within a specified time. The delay in claim will cease to  extract  it .  The petitioner  has not lodge any FIR  regarding it . There is no obligation for O.P  to supply C.C.T.V  footage  to the petitioner . No loss is actually  caused  to the petitioner .  No deficiency in service is made by  O.P no.2.The petitioner is not entitled to any claim in this case against the O.Ps .  More over computer problem net  problem is the own risk of the person holding  ATM card .  In no case the petitioner can claim for deficiency  of service by the O.Ps.  The claim is vexatious and liable to be dismissed with cost.

            On the date of hearing we heard the arguments from the  learned advocate for both the sides. Perused the pleadings  and  documents  available on record..

            The learned advocate for the complaint argued that the complainant has not withdrew Rs.6,400 /- on dt 02.07.16 and   only withdraw Rs. 3200 from the ATM of O.P.no..2 . On the other hand

the learned counsel  for O.P.no.2 submitted that the ATM card can only be used by the  customer and put to personal 4 digit identification number which is selected by the customer and not by the bank. In the interest of security the customer is advised to retain this PIN in his memory so that no one else is empowered with  this information .The reverse of  the ATM card has a  magnetic strip  which contains the  card holder’s  details . This  card can be used to gain entry to the ATM enclose  by swiping it in its  access lodge . In other words,  unless a  person is in possession of relevant ATM  card and  knows the four PIN ,  the ATM card  can not be used and operated .  As a matter of further Precaution in case the PIN number  is entered wrongly thrice  in succession the ATM  will swallow  the card itself “or” cancel the card permanently “or”  will not function . In the instant case  the complainant stated that he  had  not withdrawn Rs 6,400/  on 02.07.16  which has been  wrongly debited from his  account instead of Rs.3200/- . But the account statement of the complainant it is clear  that the complainant account no. and the ATM card no. have been reflected in the A/C slip which shows that the ATM card of the complainant was used  two  times   for withdrawal  of an amount  of Rs. 6,400/- (3200 + 3200) on 02.07.16  we also   went  through  a decision of Hon’ble N.C  reported in 2011(2)  CPR -26( State Bank of India vers . K. K. Bhalla )  In  the said  decision it is observed  as follows :

             “ In view of the elaborate  procedure involved by bank ,  it is not possible for  money to be withdrawn by an unauthorized person from ATM  without ATM  card  and  knowledge of  PIN  number”.

            In the  instance case it is not disputed that the ATM  card and the PIN no.  is in  the self custody / knowledge of the complainant . In view of the elaborate  procedure  evolved by the O.P’s  bank to ensure  that without  the ATM card  and knowledge of the PIN number , it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorized person from an ATM ,we find it difficult to accept the complainant’s contention .

Keeping in view for the above facts and cited decision we have no option but to dismiss case with no order as to costs.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17th day of November,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.