DATE OF FILING                    :     27-09-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      28-10-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     29-10-2014.  

Monoj Singh,

son of late Biswanat Singh,

residing at 46,  Chotelal Mishra  Road,  Ghusuri,

P.S. M.P.  Ghora, District –Howrah,

PIN – 711107.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Branch Manager,

            State Bank of India,

            Liluah Branch, Liluah,

            53, G.T. Road ( N ),

            District – Howrah.

2.         The Branch Manager,

            SBI Branch ( Code 03211 )

            Mathowrah-Mari Road, Marhowrah Main  Road,

            Saran ( Bihar ),

            PIN – 841418. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Manoj Singh,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund the amount of Rs. 16,000/- to the  SBI A/C no. 30236373357 held by the complainant, to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as cost and compensation  along  with other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.               Brief fact of the case is that complainant used his ATM Card having no. 6220180180137700095458 issued by o.p. no. 1 at Marhowrah, Bihar, on 24-02-2013 for withdrawing Rs. 16,000/-. But  the process of withdrawal at that particular AT M point at Marhowrah failed and the transaction could not be a fulfilled one. And the complainant did not receive any cash. But an amount of Rs. 16,000/- had been debited from his S/B A/C as shown in his pass book. He immediately informed the matter to both o.p. nos. 1 & 2 but they did not pay any heed to that.  Thereafter, he lodged a complaint   with o.p. no. 1 on 27-04-2013 vide xerox copies of complaint dated 27-04-2013.  Also he lodged one complaint with local P.S. being  G.D.E. No. 143 of 2013 dated 07-04-2013 vide  Annexure. But o.ps. remained silent without doing anything. So, he filed a complaint to Ombudsman. But even then he did not receive his money back. Then the petitioner sent lawyer’s notice to o.ps. on 26-08-2013 requesting them to refund his wrongfully deducted amount of Rs. 16,000/-. The o.ps. received the letter remained silent which caused severe mental agony for the petitioner. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this case praying for refund of Rs. 16,000/- with a compensation amount of Rs. 15,000/- along with other orders as they  Forum may deem fit and proper.     

3.               Notices were served. O.Ps.   appeared and contested the case by filing  written version.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. O.p. no. 1 in their written version has categorically stated vide para 12 that the transaction, meant for withdrawal of money by the complainant on 24-02-2013 from the  ATM point having  Code no.  03211 is situated in Patna  Circle,  was a successful one.  They have filed one annexure showing the successful transaction made by the complainant. and it is the duty of the complainant to keep the ATM Card and PIN number in safe custody. For any mistake on the part of the complainant, o.ps. cannot be held liable. Moreover, on that day, no excess cash was found in that ATM  Counter as certified by the ATM Branch . Mar Howrah, i.e., o.p. no. 2  So, o.p. no. 2 also closed the complaint with EG/JP Log vide  Annexure as the transaction was a   successful one. But here we take a pause, is it a luxury on the part of the complainant to file a case for no valid reason? That too, for an amount of ` 16,000/- ! It is our common knowledge that ATM machines sometimes do not perform  correctly. Machines give the document properly but not money.  And thereby the subscribers are getting highly prejudiced for no fault of them. When o.ps. are literally forcing the people to accept ATM Cards to lesser their work load, the liability of non-performance of ATM machines has to be borne by them.  They just cannot shrug off their duty towards the consumers. Accordingly the case is allowed in part against o.p. no.1 as the complainant is the direct consumer of o.p. no. 1.  Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  344 of 2013 ( HDF 344 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. no, 1 and dismissed ex parte against the o.p. no. 2 without costs.   

      That the  O.P. no. 1 is directed to refund  ` 16,000/-  to the complainant’s S.B. A/c. no. 30236373357  held with them within 30 days from the date of this order.   

       The complainant do get an award of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs from the o.p. no. 1 within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 17,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till realization.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.