West Bengal

Cooch Behar

CC/29/2021

Mintu Chandra Deb, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Santosh Kr. Sah,

22 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
B. S. Road, Cooch Behar -736101.
Ph. No. 03582-230696, 222023
E-mail - confo-kb-wb at the rate of nic.in
Web - www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/29/2021
( Date of Filing : 16 Jul 2021 )
 
1. Mintu Chandra Deb,
S/o. Late B.C. Deb, Rajeshwari Appartment, B.S. Road, Minakumari Chowpathi, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. Cooch Behar-736101.
2. Sutapa Deb,
W/o. Mintu Chandra Deb, Rajeshwari Appartment, B.S. Road, Minakumari Chowpathi, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. Cooch Behar-736101.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
Cooch Behar Branch, Sagardighi Square, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. Cooch Behar-736101.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. RUMPA MANDAL MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SUBHAS CHANDRA GUIN MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sri Santosh Kr. Sah,, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Sri Santosh Kr. Sah,, Advocate for the Complainant 2
 Sri Surajit Dutta, Advocate for the Opp. Party 2
Dated : 22 Feb 2023
Final Order / Judgement

 

Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.

The basic fact of the case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant Mintu Ch. Deb and his wife Sutapa Deb are the Consumers under the OP State Bank of India having Savings Account No. 11306146760 against which the OP issued ATM card bearing No. 4592000158184230. On 24.02.2021, due to urgent need of money for Rs. 4,000/-, the Complainant-1 went to the ATM counter of the OP at Cooch Behar to withdraw money. When he pushed the ATM card, at the time of coming out money from the machine, the ATM machine stopped functioning and the said Rs. 4,000/- did not come out and the Complainant-1 did not receive the cash. The Complainant-1 again pushed the ATM card in another machine of the same booth to withdraw Rs. 4,000/-, but same as before the Complainant-1 did not receive money. Thereafter the Complainant-1 went to the Power House Chowpathy and pushed his ATM card in the ATM counter of Bank of India ATM booth, but no money was received. Thereafter the Complainant noticed that the OP State Bank of India, Cooch Behar Sagardighi branch deducted Rs.12,000/- illegally from the account of the Complainants. Subsequently, the OP returned back Rs. 4,000/- to the account of the Complainant against the third transaction by Bank of India. But the OP did not credit Rs.8,000/- to the account of the Complainant. The Complainant on the same day lodged a written complaint to the OP in toll free number against which the OP replied that the matter would be resolved within five calendar days, but to no effect. Subsequently, the Complainant-1 filed written complain to the OP on 31.03.2021 which they intentionally received on 13.04.2021. The Complainant also requested to the OP to show CCTV footage and J P log of ATM machine but the OP did not comply. Therefore the Complainant suffered mental pain and agony due to the misdeed of the OP. The cause of action arose on 24.02.2021 and 31.03.2021. The Complainant prayed for an award for Rs. 8,000/- as the actual money, Rs. 40,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost with a direction to the OP to produce CCTV footage and J P card of the disputed transactions dated 24.02.2021.

The OP contested the case by filing written version wherein they denied each and every allegation. The positive defence case of the OP in brief is that, after receiving the complaint from the Complainant on 13.04.2021 the OP Bank enquired into the matter and informed it to their higher authority. On 24.02.2021, there was successful transaction in the ATM situated opposite to the Cooch Behar Bazar branch in the account of the Complainant bearing No. 11306146760 and ATM card No. 4592000158184230. The original fact of the case is that the Complainant entered into the ATM of OP Bank Cooch Behar branch at about 13:00 hours being ATM ID: T1NW000058080 with intent to withdraw Rs. 4,000/-. After pressing the card, it was ejected at about 13:01:16, card taken about 13:01:19, dispense complete about 13:01:23 and lastly notes dispensed at about 13:01:27 and the type of dispensed INR 500 in eight pieces and cash presented at about 13:01:27. The said machine successfully delivered cash amounting Rs.4,000/- to the Complainant which is also reflected in his Savings Bank passbook. The Complainant also entered into the ATM of OP on 24.02.2021 at about 13:03 being ATM ID T1NW000058084 with intent to withdraw Rs. 4,000/-. After pressing the card, it was ejected at about 13:02:11, card taken about 13:02:17, dispense complete about 13:02:18 and lastly notes dispensed at about 13:02:22 and the type of dispensed INR 500 in eight pieces and cash presented at about 13:02:22. The said machine successfully delivered cash amounting Rs.4,000/- to the Complainant which is also reflected in his Savings Bank passbook. The ATM card of the Complainant with secret password is kept with the Complainant in his possession, so there was no scope to withdraw money. The OP claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The conflicting facts of the parties led this Commission to ascertain the following points for proper adjudication of the case.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

  1. Whether the present case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
  2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
  3. To what other relief if any the Complainants are entitled to get?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point No.1.

Out of the two Complainants, the debit card appears to have been issued in the name of one of the parties. The OP however has not challenged that aspect but took the plea that the case is bad for defect of parties.

It is fact that the third transaction took place with the Bank of India ATM Counter against which a sum of Rs.4,000/- is claimed to have been credited in the account of the Complainants and as such the Complainants have not raised any grievance against them. Accordingly, the said Bank of India is not required to be made party in this case. So the case cannot be said to be bad for defect of parties.

Having perused the pleadings of the parties and the materials in the case record, the Commission comes to the finding that the case is maintainable in its present form subject to the ascertainment of relief on the basis of discussion under Point no. 2 & 3.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is decided in favour of the Complainants.

Point No.2 & 3.

Both the points are very closely related to each other and as such these are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion.

It is the admitted position that the Complainanat-1 used the ATM card on 24.02.2021 at the ATM counter of the OP Bank Cooch Behar Bazar Branch for withdrawing Rs. 4,000/- two times at two different ATM machines situated at the same place, but both the two transactions were unsuccessful and as such the Complainant-1 did not receive cash of Rs. 4,000/- on both the two occasions.

The OP categorically denied the said allegation in their written version as well as by adducing evidence on affidavit along with documentary evidence.

The OP in order to discard the evidence of the Complainant filed in the form of evidence on affidavit, adduced documentary evidence namely copy of statement details for transaction in the Account No. 11306146760 on 24.02.2021 under the ATM ID of two ATM counters No. T1NW000058080 and T1NW000058084 with signature of the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Cooch Behar Bazar branch in respect of the first transaction No. 6324, the details of the transaction shows as under:

[001779] [24/02/2021 13:01:16] CARD EJECTED

[001780] [24/02/2021 13:01:19] CARD TAKEN

[001781] [24/02/2021 13:01:23] DISPENSE COMPLETE

[001782] [24/02/2021 13:01:24] CASSETTE STATUS CHANGED: [OK]. [MISSING], [OK], [OK], [OK]

[001783] [24/02/2021 13:01:27] NOTES DISPENSED

TypeA (INR50)      =0

TypeB (INR100)    =0

TypeC (INR500)    =8

TypeD (INR2000) =0

TypeE (INR200)     =0

TypeF (NOT SET)   =0

TypeG (NOT SET)  =0

[001784] [24/02/2021 13:01:27] CASH PRESENTED

[001785] [24/02/2021 13:01:27] SOLICITAED STATUS SEND: SUCCEEDED

Similarly, in respect of Transaction No. 5375, the details of the transaction shows as under:

[001208] [24/02/2021 13:02:11] CARD EJECTED

[001209] [24/02/2021 13:02:17] CARD TAKEN

[001210] [24/02/2021 13:02:18] DISPENSE COMPLETE

[001211] [24/02/2021 13:02:24] NOTES DISPENSED

TypeA (INR50)      =0

TypeB (INR100)    =0

TypeC (INR500)    =8

TypeD (INR2000) =0

TypeE (INR200)     =0

TypeF (NOT SET)   =0

TypeG (NOT SET)  =0

[001212] [24/02/2021 13:02:22] CASH PRESENTED

[001213] [24/02/2021 13:02:22] SOLICITAED STATUS SEND: SUCCEEDED

The Complainant neither cross-examined the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Cooch Behar Bazar branch to discard the said documentary evidence, nor could the Complainant adduce any counter evidence against the said documentary evidence.

It is fact that there is no heading in the said two documents as J P Log, but it is crystal clear from the said two documents, that the Complainant made transaction on 24.02.2021 at 13:01:16 card ejected, card taken at 13:01:19 and finally notes dispensed at 13:01:27 on 24.02.2021. It is further found from the said transaction detail that INR 500 in eight notes were dispensed against the said card on 24.02.2021 with a further remark cash presented on 24.02.2021 at 13:01:27 with solicited status sent: succeeded.

The transaction detail of transaction No. 5375 also discloses that the Complainant made transaction on 24.02.2021 at 13:02:11 card ejected, card taken at 13:02:17 AND finally notes dispensed at 13:02:22 on 24.02.2021. It is further found from the said transaction detail that INR 500 in eight notes were dispensed against the said card on 24.02.2021 with a further remark cash presented on 24.02.2021 at 13:02:22 with solicited status sent: succeeded.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that cash might have been dispensed on the unfateful day by the ATM machine but it went back to the tray of the ATM machine which the Complainant did not receive.

The argument has not sufficient force in as much as the Complainant did not cross-examine the OP to substantiate their plea or to discard the specific defence plea by means of documentary evidence.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion and observation made therein, the Commission comes to the finding that the Complainant could not substantiate the case upto the hilt.

In the result, the Complaint case fails.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the Complaint Case No. CC/29/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost. Case is accordingly disposed of.

DA to note in the Trial Register.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.

The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me. 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. RUMPA MANDAL]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SUBHAS CHANDRA GUIN]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.