DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO.377/2015
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
26.06.2015 06.07.2015 10.03.2016
Complainant = Vs. = O.Ps.
Sri Rangalal Dhara, The Manager,
S/o. Late Bijoy Krishna Dhara, SBI Bank,
21, R. B.C Road (Extn), H.B Town Branch,
P.O. and P.S. Dum Dum, Sodepur,
Kolkata- 700068. Kolkata- 700110.
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Bandana Roy ……….President
:- Smt. Jhunu Prasad……….Member.
J U D G E M E N T
The fact of the case, in brief, is that the complainant was failed in the attempt to draw the Rs 20, 000/- in the ATM of SBI, the complainant when attempt to draw the amount to insert card in the machine but unfortunately machine could not give any kind of money, but machine provide him amount credit slip. The next two attempts were also unsuccessful and the message was “sorry, unable to process.”
Complainant stated that the complainant went to the SBI Bank, Dum Dum Cantonment branch, said the matter but Bank officer did not trust him, they said that the complainant draw the money through his ATM.
Complainant also stated that the complainant informed the said matter to the OP written application vide dated 09.04.2014, 25.04.2014. 24.05.2014. 24.06.2014 and also complainant asked them to inspect the CC footage.
Complainant further stated that the complainant approached to the RBI banking ombudsman who did not give any verdict in the matter but advised the complainant approached any other authority under law for redress of grievances.
Complainant stated that the complainant appealed before the Assistant Director of C.A. & F.B.P. Barrackpore regional office for disposal the dispute and after the Barrackpore office noticed the complainant and the OP for hearing the matter and on 17.03.2015 one tripartite hearing was held in the Barrackpore office but the OP was not present.
Complainant also stated that the acts and activities of the OP is the glaring example of unfair trade practice and the complainant is of firm belief that the OP with its men and agents are playing a foul game in a very clandestine manner with the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-377/2015
- :: 2 :: -
OP has contested the case by filing written version.
OP stated that the when the complainant after transaction of Rs 20, 000/- further the complainant insert his ATM Card that was shown attempt was unsuccessful because of there was no sufficient fund for further Rs 20, 000/- not available in the complainant’s account.
OP also stated that on the basis of the committee was framed by the higher authority for taking steps in view of the complainant made an applications and it was found from footage print and server report from ATM counter it was crystal clear that complainant was drawn Rs 20, 000/- from the ATM counter and after that when he was further insert his card that was insufficient on his account and also this information communicated to the complainant.
OP further stated that when the complainant knows the transaction was good and completely made by the complainant then the complainant complaint each and every authorities inspite of the committee enquiry but this complaint filed before the Ld. Forum only vague and in vain. It is liable to be dismissed with the exemplary cost for reputation of the biggest corporate sector of India summarily.
Point for Decision:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision
Admittedly complainant is the account holder of State Bank of India, Sodepur Branch vide no-6220180660800052079. Complainant grievance is that he inserted his ATM card in the machine and unfortunately machine said “Sorry unable to process”. According to the OP, Rs 20, 000/- has been disbursed as per the evidence of the CCTV footage and the statement of the account of claim and that there was no sufficient amount in second time after receiving of Rs 20, 000/-. There was a balance of Rs 8, 000/- as per evidence of the record of the OP. It appears that though OP has stated in its written version that copy of the CCTV footage and statement of account dated 01.04.2014 are enclosed as exhibit AV-1. But the same has not been produced by the OP. In view of withholding that document we are of the view that the machine was not functioning properly and there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s evidence in chief. In view if the aforesaid discussion we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. Case No.-377/2015
- :: 3 :: -
Hence
Ordered,
that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.
OP is directed to refund Rs 20, 000/- to the complainant within the one month from the date of this order, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @12% per annum till actual payment.
OP is also directed to pay Rs 2,000/- as compensation and Rs 2, 000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which OP shall have to pay sum of Rs 50/- per day from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the OP in this State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
