Hon’ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The fact of the complaint petition in a nut shell is that the Complainant, Mr. Gulmanta Karji, who is a resident of village Andaran under the district of Cooch Behar had a savings bank account No.548102010005611 with the Union Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch, P.O. & Dist- Cooch Behar which issued him an ATM card bearing No. 4520555481001382. For an urgent need of money on 22.11.20 the Complainant punched his ATM card at the counter of State Bank of India, Tufanganj Branch, P.O. & P.S. Tufanganj, Dist- Cooch Behar to withdraw Rs.5,000/- but no cash came out from the ATM. Subsequently he again punched his card in the same ATM for withdrawing Rs.5,000/- but previous incident recurred. Thereafter, he punched his card for the third time to withdraw Rs.5,000/- in the same ATM but this time ATM dispensed Rs.5,000/- which he received. To his utter surprise it was found that there was debit of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- on 22.11.20 in his said S/B account when his pass book was updated although he punched his card three times to withdraw Rs.5,000/- each time and got Rs.5,000/- only once. He then informed the matter of non-dispensation of cash to the O.Ps. They assured the Complainant that the disputed amount of Rs.10,000/- would be credited to his account within short period automatically. After several complaint before the O.Ps, the O.P. No.1 issued one certificate with respect to the disputed transaction on 03.02.21. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged a complaint in this regard in RBI portal having complaint No. N202122005016359 but the disputed amount was not credited to the account of the Complainant. Being annoyed with demeanour of the O.Ps, the Complainant filed a written complaint before the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar for redressal of his grievances but the dispute was resolved as the O.P. No.1 was not present on the second day of mediation. Then he filed a written complaint before the O.Ps but they did not receive the same. Ultimately he sent the written complaint to the O.P. No.1 through registered post on 20.05.20222 but the O.P. No.1 did not reply to that effect. As a last resort the Complainant filed this against the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch, P.O. & Dist- Cooch Behar as the O.P. No.1 and the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tufanganj Branch, P.O. & P.S. Tufanganj, Dist- Cooch Behar as the O.P. No.2 before this Commission for getting relief for the dispute arisen out of non-dispensation of cash from the ATM of the O.P. No.2 bank. The cause of action arose on 22.11.20 when the Complainant failed to withdraw money from the ATM but the account was debited and on 03.02.21 when the O.P. No.1 issued a certificate on non-dispensation of cash from the ATM and lastly on 20.05.2022 when the Complainant sent a written complaint to the O.P. No.1 through registered post and still continuing.
These activities of the O.Ps were deficiency in service which caused the Complainant to suffer from mental pain and agony as alleged by the Complainant for which he prayed to the Commission for a direction to refund Rs.10,000/- with interest and to pay Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service as well as mental pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- for litigation cost to the Complainant.
Notices were served upon the O.Ps but from the case record it is found that the O.P. No.1 received the same on 25.07.2022 and was debarred from filing written version vide order No.03 dated 22.08.2022. The O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.2 submitted a letter of Reserve Bank of India relating to Reconciliation of failed transactions at ATMs at the time of argument. The O.P. No.2 in his defence plea stated that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from the Complainant’s saving bank account No.548102010005611 of Union Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch which the Complainant informed them by submitting a letter dated 21.06.2022. But the Complainant in his letter did not mention any ATM Id from where he withdrew the money nor did he submit any ATM slip regarding the alleged transaction. Therefore, without the said documents the O.P. No.2 could not detect the alleged transaction done by the Complainant. At the same time, the O.P. No.2 maintained only two ATMs having ATM Id:-SINB011382002 & SIBB011382001 in Tufanganj Sub-division under Cooch Behar district and other ATMs in Tufanganj is maintained by Cooch Behar Branch. So if the Complainant did not punch his ATM card in the above mentioned two ATMs then the O.P. No.2 is not liable for the dispute arisen. Therefore, the O.P. No.2 could not produce EJ log, JP log and CC TV footage as the Complainant was unable to supply transaction slip and ATM Id. So, the instant case is liable to be dismissed with sufficient cost.
Perused the case record and documents submitted by the both parties. Heard the argument advanced by both parties at length.
Therefore, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the following points need to be discussed for adjudication of the instant case.
Points For Consideration
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for in his complaint petition?
Decision with Reasons
Point No.1 & 2.
Both points are taken up together as they are closely related to each other.
The Complainant, Mr. Gulmanta Karji had a saving bank account and an ATM card of the O.P. No.1 bank (Annexure-1). He punched his ATM card in the ATM counter of the O.P. No.2 on 22.11.20 to withdraw Rs.5,000/- twice but his attempts were in vain. Then he punched the same to withdraw Rs.5,000/- from the same ATM counter but this time he succeeded. But to his utter surprise it was found that his account was debited on that day twice one for Rs.10,000/- and another for Rs.5,000/- after updating his pass book (Annexure-1). This matter was informed to the O.Ps who assured the Complainant that the disputed amount would be credited to your account within short period automatically. Despite repeated complaint regarding the disputed amount to the O.Ps, they did refund the said amount but the O.P. No.1 issued a certificate with respect to disputed transaction (Annexure-2) on 03.02.21. Later the Complainant lodged a complaint in the RBI portal having complaint NO. N202122005016359 but no fruitful result came after that also (Annexure-3). Thereafter, he filed a written complaint before Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar where mediation was held but the dispute was not settled (Annexure-4). Then he filed a written complaint to the O.P. No.1 through registered post on 20.05.2022 but no reply came for the same (Annexure-6). To take the recourse to law he filed this case before this Commission as a last resort.
Non-dispensation of cash of Rs.5,000/- from the ATM and subsequent debit of Rs.10,000/- from the account of the Complainant is the bone of contention between both parties. The role of J.P. log and CCTV footage in case of non-dispensation of cash from the ATM is vital. Considering the role of JP log, the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch (O.P. No.1) agreed to consult the JP log in the next date of mediation in the Office of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar but he did not turn up at the next date of mediation. So the mediation failed. While contesting the case the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.2 (Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tufanganj Branch) argued that JP log, EJ log and CCTV footage would be filed if the transaction slip and ATM Id of the said transaction was filed by the Complainant. He also asserted that the supply of JP log, EJ log and CCTV footage is only possible for him if the Complainant did his transaction in the two ATM counter maintained by the O.P. No.2 only. If this transaction was in the other ATM then it was not possible for him to supply the JP log, EJ log and CCTV footage. As Complainant fails to supply the transaction slip and ATM Id so, the O.P. No.2 cannot produce the same and the O.P. No.2 has no liability for the disputed amount. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.2 also mentioned that all other ATMs of State Bank of India at Tufanganj is being maintained by SBI, Cooch Behar Branch. SBI, Tufanganj Branch (O.P. No.2) has no jurisdiction to maintain any other ATMs in the district.
In this era of Core Banking System, banks operate on one bank one customer approach not on one branch one customer. Here question arises that how can the O.P. No.2 shirk his liability on the other branch of his bank as because the dispute has arisen in his branch and he has been made party in this instant case. As the O.P. No.2 could not file any JP Log, EJ Log and CCTV footage wherefrom it could be ascertained that the said transaction on the given date and time was successful or not, so it is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.2. From the Passbook of the Complainant it is depicted that a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- were debited from the account of the Complainant on 22.11.2020, although the Complainant received a sum of Rs.5,000/- only from the said transactions. On the other hand, Complainant is the customer of the O.P. No.1 who issued the Complainant an ATM card by which disputed transaction was made but the O.P. No.1 could not settle the dispute at the mediation and also did not contest the case to address the grievance of the customer. Therefore the Commission is of the view that there is gross deficiency in service on parts of the O.Ps so, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for in his complaint petition. So, both points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
In the result, the instant case succeeds on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant case No. CC/34/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.2 and ex-parte against the O.P. No.1.
So, the O.P. No.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant against the disputed amount with interest @ 6% per annum from 22.11.2020 till its realisation jointly and/or severally. They are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service as well as mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost jointly and/or severally to Complainant failing which the total awarded sum of Rs.45,000/- will carry interest @ 6% per annum till its realisation.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
