The complainant being a customer/Consumer having a saving account bearing No.30902517323 with the O.P. i.e S.BI Baunsuni .On dtd.1.11.2024 he withdrawn Rs.5,000/- which had a balance of Rs.7,229/-, hence after withdrawal the remaining balance should be Rs.2229/- in the account by his debit card bearing No.622018xxxxxx8888 at A .T.M counter, S.B I Baunsuni, On dt.20.1.2015 the O.P issued a letter bearing No.Gen/34/29 to the complainant asking to deposit Rs.7,000/- only which had withdrawn on dtd.1.11.2014 by that debit card as it had not been debited from the account. In the said letter the O.P. not informed to the complainant regarding holding of the account. The complainant very much informed that he had a balance of Rs.7,000/- so he had withdrawn only R.5,000/- and not more then that and if, how he can? But the O.P. had illegally demanded Rs.7,000/- to deposit for adjustment of the account. Then, the complainant approached the O.P on several times both writing and orally to slove the problem but the O.P. put a deaf ear on that. Ultimately the complainant sent a Regd. Letter on dtd.30.12.2019 requesting to unhold the said account, clarifying that he had never withdrawn the amount more than Rs.5,000/- and questioned how he could with a balance of amount Rs.7,000/-?.Further the O.P.remained silent on the said regd. letter of the complainant and not responded at all. As a result of this the complainant filed the complaint before the Dist. Commission on dtd.24.1.20220. He submitted a Bank statement of the same account alongwith his petition, it is a prdoucut:SBNCHQ-GEN-PUB IND RURAL-INR, CURRENCY ;INR from dtd.1.10.2014 to 31.3.2015 in support of his claim in petition.
Further the complainant being an old man expressed his mental agony that he had lost financially a lot as he could not avail the PMAY (House) Scheme due to illegal holding of his account by the O.P and claims Rs.30,000/- for negligence and deficiency of service by the O.P.
On the otherhand the O.P. admittedly submitted that due to server problem the ATM could not debited the first withdrawal of Rs.7.000/- by the complainant from his account. Again taking advantage of this the complainant mischievously withdrawn Rs.5,000/- and thus he had withdrawn a total of Rs.12,.000/-.Whereas only the 2nd withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- is debited from his account by the A.T.M.The two transactions were made by the complainant on dtd.1.11.20214 though he had a balance of Rs.7,229/-.Thus when the serer problem is over, the ATM auto hold the said account and debited the remaining balance of Rs.2229/-.The above transaction is made by the same debit card and from the same account mentioned by the complainant, then the O.P sent regd. letter to deposit Rs.7,000/- for adjustment of account to the complainant. The O.P. had submitted ATM E alert in support of his versions. Further the Ld. Advocate of the O.P raised question of maintainability of the case and regarding limitation.
Issues on the case
- Whether the case is maintainable?
The complainant is a consumer and the O.P. being a service provider with transactions of money between the parties hence maintainable.
- Whether the case is barred by limitation?
Though the dispute is of dtd.1.11.2014, the complainant has repeatedly approached O.Pin writing as well as orally and finally served Regd.letter to O.P on dtd.30.12.2019 on which the O.P neither respond nor reply anything to the complainant on the matter and so the complainant field the complaint before District Commission on 24.1.2020 As such the complaint is within the time.
- Whether there is deficiency of service made by the O.P?
The O.P sent letter to the complainant on dtd.20.1.2015 to deposit Rs.7,000/-after a gap of 3 months from the said incident, whichis a clear negligence anddeficiency in service.
- Whether the complainant entitled to get any relief?
Further the O.P is accountable over its own installed system, technical knowhow with highly experience professionals of concerned field, so responsible for fault and failure of the system. The O.P. should not forcefully compel and charged the dispute amount over the complainant alleging him that he had mischievously, cunningly taking advantage of technical fault of the ATM system and withdrawn the dispute amount and the O.P. hold the account of the complainant by deducting the remaining balance without notice or without giving a chance of hearing. Whereas the complainant is not an ATM expert but an innocent old person and well known the balanced amount on his account. He relate to O.P. only for transaction of money genuinely with self-esteem. Further there is no CCTV visual, which is a strong proof to find out the truth and hence the O.P. is liable to provide this .Again, as it is an admitted fact by O.P that there was fault in ATM at that time hence how it will provide reliable report. On the above reasons we felt that the complainant need to be redressed.
ORDER
On the basis of the above facts, findings and circumstances we partly allowed the case in favour of the complainant with a direction to O.P to unhold the account bearing NO.30902517323 and provide Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation fornegligence , deficiency of service , harassment due to inconvenience and for mental agony. The Order should comply by the O.P. within 15 days from the date of order, failing which the O.P is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum till realisation. The case is disposed of on contest.
Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the Commission this the 30th day of January, 2023.
The final order is signed and sealed and computerized as to my dictation. Copy be supplied free of cost, if applied for.
