Delhi

North East

CC/380/2013

Kailash Chand Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.380/13

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Kailash Chand Gupta S/o Shri K.L.Gupta R/o C-5/130, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.
				Complainant
		Versus
		The Branch Manager State Bank of India Ghonda, Delhi-110053.   The H.D.F.C. Bank ATM Block C-6, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi -110053.
				Opposite parties
			DATE OF NSTITUTION:	31.12.2013
			DATE OF DECISION      :	04.04.2016

 

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Manju Bala Sharma, Member:-

 

 

 

 

Order

 

1.             The case of the complainant in brief is that the Branch Manager SBI (hereinafter referred to as OP1) has wrongly debited the SBI Account No. 10202004648 of the complainant with Rs. 30,000/- on 7.11.2012. The complainant gave RTI application dated 12.6.2013 through PM but no response was received by him. The complainant gave notice to OP1 vide letter dated 9.9.2013 but no suitable response was received. The complainant further stated that he visited so many times and spent Rs. 52,000/- upon travel. Pleading deficiency in service the complainant prayed that he has suffered financial loss / mental agony.
2.             Notice was issued to both the OPs. OP1 in its reply while admitting the fact that complainant is holder of saving Account in its bank took preliminary objection that the complaint is false and frivolous and stated that while issuing ATM Card general instructions/terms and condition by way of a booklet are provided to the card holder that no transaction can be done without ATM cum Debit Card and secret Pin Number and in case of unauthorized use of ATM Card or passing of PIN to someone else bank is not responsible. It is further stated that the transaction in question is apparently successful which is proved by documentary evidence placed on record. On merits the OP1 has stated that the complaint lodged by complainant was duly attended and the complainant was advised with the remarks that the time limit for raising this dispute was over due to which complaint could not be processed and denied any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP1.
3.             OP2  filed its reply and at the very outset denied all allegations except the withdrawal of Rs. 30,000/- through the ATM Card from SIACDL05 ATM of OP2 bank situated at Yamuna Vihar. It is stated that as soon as the matter was reported to OP2, OP2 closely examined the record and confirmed that the cash was withdrawn by the complainant through Debit Card. It is further stated that for any successful ATM transaction it is incumbent that the Debit Card issued to the customer is inserted in any of the designated ATM alongwith a secret PIN which is known only to the card holder and if the complainant claims that he had not done the transaction then his account sensitive details must have been comprised as misuse of Debit Card and Secret PIN.
4.             Replication to the reply of OPs has been filed by the complainant reiterating the facts stated in the complaint. The complainant in the replication to the reply of OP1 stated that the transaction was not successful because no amount came out from ATM machine but this fact could not come to the knowledge of complainant because he was busy in looking after his close family relation who was not well and expired later on but when complainant came to know about aforesaid fact he immediately lodged his complaint to his bank on 9.9.2013.
5.             Affidavit of evidence has been filed by the parties. Complainant has filed copy of the death certificate of Smt. Nirmal Saha, Smt. Kalawati and Shri Keshto Lal Saha died on 30.6.2013, 4.8.2013 and 8.10.2013 respectively (CI to C3), Bank ATM Transaction record slip of HDFC Bank (C4), alongwith copy of the letter given to OP1 dated 9.9.2013 (C5), OP1 has filed ATM Transaction report as Exhibit OP1/1, copy of report of ATM Switch Centre as Exhibit OP1/2 and Statement of Account of the complainant as Exhibit OP1/3. OP2 has filed copy of CBR Sheet, Audit Trail, Log Report and Inter Bank Switch Settlement Report as Exhibit OP2W1/B.
6.             Heard Ld. counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. Complainant has placed on record ATM Transaction Slip of HDFC Bank (C-4) which is blank and does not contain date/time and even the card Number to establish as to on which date/time and through which ATM the transaction has taken place. On the other hand OP2 has filed computerised Audit Trial, JP Log and Switch Report which show that the transaction is successful. The complainant in Para 3 of replication to the reply of OP1 has stated as under:-

   “That the contents of Para No-3 are admitted except the successful transaction because no amount was came out from the ATM machine but this facts could not come in the knowledge of the complainant because he was busy for looking after his real close family members who were faced physically problems and after that he expired but when the complainant has come to know about the above said facts, he immediately lodged his complaint to his bank on 9.9.2013 and the photo copy are attached here with and on 7.11.2012, the complainant went to SBI ATM Branches Yamuna Vihar and Gokal Puri to draw his amount of Rs. 10,000/- and I came to know that the server of ATM machine were drawn and therefore could not draw the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and 1^st time I went to HDFC ATM machine which is stalled at block C-6, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53 to draw an amount of Rs. 10,000/- only and when 1^st time no amount came out from the machine again twice to get an amount but failed to get the same only HDFC Bank transaction slip came out every time which was blank but the machine of ATM was not properly worked and the receipt are attached here with in this regard.”

7.             From the reading of the above Para an inference can be drawn that the complainant himself has not gone to the ATM to get the withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- but instead has handed over the ATM Card and Secret PIN to someone else and it is only because of this fact that he came to know about the above said transaction only on 9.9.2013 and made complaint to the bank whereas the transaction has taken place on 7.11.2012. OP1 has stated in its reply that while issuing ATM Card/General Instructions/Terms and Conditions by way of a booklet are provided to the card holder containing terms and conditions and precaution and one of the condition is that the holder will not hand over the ATM Card or Share Secret PIN to anybody else and in case of unauthorized use of the ATM Card or passing of PIN Number to someone else Bank is not responsible.
8.             From the above facts and circumstances we do not find that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant has failed to establish its case against the OPs. The complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9.             Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.             File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  04.04.2016)    

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member