District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri P. K. Chakraborty - President
Shri J. Bhattacharya - Member
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 40/2014
Smt. Ramita Roy
W/o Sri Mithun Roy
& D/o Dulal Chandra Roy
Vill.: Jhapurshi, PO : Patiram,
PS : Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. Branch Manager
S.B.I., Balurghat Branch
PO & PS : Balurghat
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. Branch Manager
S.B.I., Patiram Branch
PO : Patiram PS : Balurghat
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party / Parties
For complainant ………… - Shri Bidyut Kr. Roy, Ld. Adv. &
- Shri Anish Das, Ld. Adv.
For OP No.1 …………. - None.
For OP No. 2 …………… - Shri Arindam Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.
Date of Filing : 22.09.2014
Date of Disposal : 13.03.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 13.03.2015
The complainant during her student life opened a S.B. Account No.30980987289 with S.B.I. Patiram Branch at the instance of Bahicha High School, Patiram, Dakshin Dinajpur and still operating that account and thus became a consumer under the OP Bank. Husband of the complainant working in Mumbai used to remit money to the complainant through the said bank account of the complainant for the livelihood of the complainant and her in-laws. Husband of the complainant remitted on 25.7.2014 a sum of Rs.20,000/- and the amount was duly credited into the account of the complainant. On the same day, the complainant with intent to withdraw cash of Rs.9,000/- from her bank account through ATM, visited the ATM Booth sponsored by SBI, Balurghat Branch situated at Chowrangee More, Patiram and used her ATM card No.4591500194809469. She was accompanied by her elder brother Sri Sanjay Roy. In that ATM booth she put all the data, pushed all digits and keys successfully as per instructions appearing in the machine as adopted in money transaction process, but did not get the money despite exhausting all the things. A slip came out from the machine with the insertion “Sorry Unable to Process”. The complainant waited for nearly 15 minutes in the proximity of the said ATM booth, but she did not get any result. Then the complainant along with her brother visited another ATM booth known as “1st ATM”, Patiram sponsored by SBI, Patiram Branch to collect the desired amount of Rs.9,000/- but the slip came out from the machine bearing the same insertion. The complainant made second attempt to withdraw money from the same ATM booth (1st ATM) and ultimately, she was able to collect a sum of Rs.9,000/-. Although, the transaction enquiry message in respect of the account of the complainant showed withdrawal of a sum of Rs.9,000/-, the OP Bank showed withdrawal of Rs.18,000/- from her account on 25.7.2014. The complainant made further attempts for withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- twice, but failed to collect money. The complainant got
Contd…P/3
message from the OP Bank in her mobile that the said amount was withdrawn by her but subsequently she found that the amount was not debited from her account and the same was retained by reversing the entries. When the complainant came to know from the transaction enquiry message that her account balance has been reduced to Rs.2,000/- from Rs.11,000/- she became astonished. The complainant came to know from OP No.2 that withdrawal of Rs.18,000/- was made from her account in two ATM transactions of Rs.9,000/- each. When she requested the OP No.2 to show evidence of withdrawal, she was advised to lodge complaint for restoration of actual amount of money lying with the account of the complainant. Complaint was made to the OP Bank twice, but neither any enquiry was made by the OP Bank nor the amount was recovered by the OP Bank. Sticking to the claim of withdrawal of only Rs.9,000/- in a single transaction and not Rs.18,000/- in two transactions of Rs.9,000/- on 25.7.2014, the complainant has filed this complaint against the Op bank alleging deficiency in service on their part and praying inter alia for a direction upon the OPs for restoration of an amount of Rs.9,000/- in the SB Account of the complainant and for payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing harassment to her.
The case was contested by the OP-2 by filing a written version denying, inter alia , all the material allegations against it. The OP No.2 has stated that the complainant should have used the ATM Card with great care and caution. It is further stated that the complainant, on 25.7.2014, made several attempts to withdraw cash from her account through ATM machines of which transaction numbers 1390 & 4415 were unsuccessful and transactions in ID No.1378 & 4398 were successful and in each of the two successful transactions, the complainant withdrew cash of Rs.9,000/- and accordingly her account was debited by the amount withdrawn in those two transactions. In the written version, the OP-2 admitted wrong debit of Rs.2,000/- from the
Contd…P/4
complainant’s account but stated that the OP on the same day allowed credit for Rs.2,000/- to her account. The OP-2 has stated that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP No.2 and hence, has prayed for dismissal of the case.
The case proceeded ex-parte against the OP No.1 The complainant called for some documents from the OP No.1 viz. transaction message sent on 25.7.2014 by the OP No.1 in the mobile phone of the complainant and video footage dated 25.7.2014 recorded in CC camera of Chowrangee More ATM booth of SBI, Balurghat Branch. The OP No.1 took some time for collecting the desired records which were maintained by its agency but finally, quoting version of the agency, expressed its inability to produce the documents called for and stated that the system could not retrieve the images as the transaction date exceeded 90 days.
Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant drew our attention to the relevant portion of the bank pass book for the Savings account maintained by the complainant with the OP-2 bank and contended that the bank debited Rs.18,000/- on 25.7.2014 for two ATM withdrawal of Rs.9,000/- each when a single successful transaction of Rs.9,000/- only could be made by the complainant through ATM on her second attempt to withdraw cash of Rs.9,000/- from the “1st ATM” sponsored by Patiram Branch of SBI after being failure to withdraw cash from the ATM booth sponsored by the Balurghat Branch of SBI at Chowrangee More and in the first attempt made at the 1st ATM of Patiram Branch. It was his further submission that the OP-1 ought to have produced before the Forum the video footage of the CCTV in the Chowrangee More ATM booth of SBI, Balurghat Branch for proper adjudication of the case.
Ld. Counsel on behalf of the OPs vehemently opposed the contentions of the complainant. It was contented that cash could not be withdrawn from an ATM machine without inserting ATM Card in the
Contd…P/5
machine and giving the confidential PIN number of the holder of that ATM Card. It was further contended that the complainant was supposed to know the rules of using ATM Card in ATM booth. Ld. Counsel contended that the bank record revealed complainant’s making several attempts to withdraw cash from ATM machines at Patiram by using her ATM Card on 25.7.2014, transaction ID nos. 1390 and 4415 being unsuccessful and transaction ID nos. 1378 and 4398 for withdrawal of Rs.9,000/- in each case were successful and so debiting complainant’s Savings account to which the ATM Card of the complainant related by Rs.18,000/- was correctly done and there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP Bank. Ld. Counsel submitted that video footage of ATM booth was maintained by a particular agency namely, Tata Communications, for 90 days only from the day of transaction and in this particular case that agency could not provide with the video footage as the period exceeded 90 days. It was his submission that the documents filed by him were indicative of two successful transactions in the ATMs of the OP Bank that involved withdrawal of cash of Rs.18,000/- by the complainant on 25.7.2014 and therefore, production of video footage was redundant.
Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the petition of complaint and written version filed by the OP No.2. Examined carefully the documents filed by both sides.
It is an admitted position that the complainant was holding Savings Account No.30980987289 with the OP Bank (OP No.2) and ATM Card No. 459150019480 issued by the OP Bank. It is also an admitted position that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was credited to the above mentioned Savings Account of the complainant on 25.7.2014. The complainant disputed over withdrawal of cash through ATM booths of SBI at Patiram on 25.7.2014. The complainant’s contention is that she has withdrawn Rs.9,000/- only on that day by using her ATM Card
Contd…P/6
at the ATM booth of SBI, Patiram (mentioned as 1st ATM) and that she could not withdraw money from ATM booth at Chowrangee More, Patiram sponsored by SBI, Balurghat Branch, on 25.7.2014 and thereafter from the 1st ATM at Patiram of SBI, Patiram Branch on the first attempt and in case of those two unsuccessful transactions, slips came out with the message - “Sorry Unable to Process”. The complainant filed transaction slips for TXN No.1390 of Patiram (1st ATM) for unsuccessful transaction dt. 25.7.2014 at 16:40 hrs and unsuccessful TXN No. 4415 of Patiram (Chowrangee More) dt. 25.7.2014 at 17:14 hrs. No transaction slip for successful transaction is, however, produced. Copy of pass book filed shows withdrawal of Rs.9,000/- from SBI Patiram (Chowrangee More) under ATM 4398 and withdrawal of Rs.9,000/- from SBI Patiram (1st ATM Patiram) under ATM 1378 both on 25.7.2014.
The OPs, on the other hand, filed ATM transaction statement dt. 25.7.2014 which shows transactions of Rs.9,000/- each have been made by the holder of Card No. 4591500194809469 and Account No. 30980987289 of Branch Code 12411 at 16:24:57 and 16:32:25 under RR No. 4398 and 1378, respectively, Card No. and Account No. being those of the complainant and branch code appearing in the statement is the branch code of SBI, Patiram. Copies of E.J. logs filed also shows withdrawal by the holder of ATM Card number 4591500194809469 of Rs. 9,000/- from ATM ID IFBN 000020033 at 16:24 under TXN No. 4398 on 25.7.2014 leaving available balance at Rs.11566/- and Rs.9,000/- from ATM ID No. S10A012411001 at 16:32 of 25.7.2014 under TXN No.1378 leaving available balance of Rs.2,566/-. Thus, it is evident that two withdrawals of Rs.9,000/- each were made from two ATM machines on the same day (25.7.2014) within a gap of 8 minutes by using Card No. 4591500194809469 belonging to the complainant.
Contd…P/7
It is nobody’s case that the ATM Card No. 4591500194809469 of the complainant was lost or misplaced at the material points of time or the ATM machines from which the complainant made attempts to withdraw cash or actually withdrew cash on 25.7.2014 were defective. The card was in the custody of the complainant and only she knew the secret PIN No. of the card and admittedly she visited the ATM booths on 25.7.2014, so the OP banks cannot be made liable for any deficiency on their parts in rendering service to the complainant. Nor it can be held that the OP Bank adopted any unfair trade practice in maintaining records of transaction of Savings Account of the complainant with the OP Bank (OP-2).
As regards liability of the OP Bank (OP No.1) for failure to supply CCTV footage to the complainant, we may rely upon the judgement of National Commission, although delivered in a different context, in the case of Sandeep Sharda vs ICICI Bank Ltd. reported in 2015(1) CPR 235 (NC) where it was held that bank cannot be held liable for supplying or denying CCTV footage to complainant.
In a case similar to the present one, National Commission has observed that without knowing PIN it is not possible for a third person to withdraw any cash though ATM even if he is able to clone ATM / Debit card issued to customers [vide Raghabendranath Sen & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank 2015(1) CPR 143 (NC)].
In view of our findings as above and observations of National Commission in the cited cases, we hold that there was no negligence or deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OP Banks to the complainant. Hence, the instant petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Contd…P/8
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the petition of complaint is dismissed on contest against the OP No.2 & ex-parte against the OP No.1 but in the circumstances without awarding any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(J. Bhattacharya)
Member
We concur,
………Sd/-..……… ………Sd/-..……… (S. Saha) (P. K. Chakraborty)
Member President
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
