Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/112

Smt. Krishna Nandi. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.Nandi, Mr.S.S.Datta.

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  112 of 2014

        Smt. Krishna Nandi,
         W/O- Sri Asish Nandi,
         Lotus Club Lane, 
         Sibnagar, P.S. East Agartala,
         West Tripura.            …........Complainant.
    
                 ______VERSUS______

             1. The State Bank of India,
        Represented by its          
         Regional Manager, 
         State Bank of India, Agartala,
         Bijoy Kumar Chowmuhani, 
         P.S- West Agartala, West Tripura,
         
        2. The Chief Manager,         
         State Bank of India, 
         Agartala Branch,
        Hariganga Basak Road, 
         P.S- West Agartala, 
         West Tripura. 

        3. The Branch Manager(ATM In-charge),         
         State Bank of India, 
         Agartala Branch,
        Hariganga Basak Road, 
         P.S- West Agartala, 
         West Tripura.             ..........Opposite Parties. 
            
                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Ashis Nandi and 
                      Sri Sushanta Sekhar Datta,     
                       Advocates.
    
For the Opposite Parties        : Sri Hare Krishna Bhowmik and
                      Sri Amit Saha,     
                      Advocates.    

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  10.02.16

 

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the complaint filed by one Krishna Nandi u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging about the deficiency of service by State Bank of India. Fact of the case in short is that on 28.07.14 the petitioner went to the SBI ATM counter at Ker Choumuhani, Agartala  for withdrawal of money through ATM card. The card was used for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- but the currency notes did not come out though vouchers comes showing successful transaction and Rs.10,000/- was deducted from her account. Immediately she again tried to get money by using the ATM card. This time she wanted to withdraw Rs.5,000/- but the currency notes did not come and the voucher with print comes out stating that ''Sorry unable to process''. There after she made complain to the State Bank Branch where her account lies stating non-receipt of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/-. Rs. 5000/- was credited again in her account but Rs.10,000/- was not credited and her complaint was ignored. Then she filed this case for redress.
        
2.        Opposite party No.1, 2 and 3, Regional Manager, Chief Manager and Branch Manager filed written statement, denying the claim. It is stated that control room of ATM switch center specifically recorded evidence for transaction of Rs.10,000/- successfully done and subsequently complainant received the amount therefore she is not entitled to get any relief. 

3.        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (i) Whether there was any deficiency of service by Opposite party, State Bank in respect of ATM service in the Ker Chowmuhani Centre?
        (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation and refund of the amount that she had not received?

4.        Petitioner, Krishna Nandi produced photocopy of Account Book, the ATM customer advice(2nos.),  her letter addressing to Branch Manager, SBI, Agartala Branch, her complaint Exhibited and marked as Exhibit 1 Series. Also examined one witness i.e., petitioner herself.

5.         O.P. on the other hand produced the transaction report of 28.07.14 on the same ATM marked exhibit A. Examined one witness, Paresh Chandra Roy, Assistant Manager of SBI. 
        On the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

        FINDINGS AND DECISION:
6.        It is admitted and established fact that the petitioner was the account holder of the SBI. She had ATM card and also using the same. The accounts statements speaks withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- on 28.07.14. Those amount were debited from her account on same day. It is also shown that Rs.5000/- was credited on 28.07.14 in the reverse form. From the 2 vouchers(Exhibit 1 Series) that came out  from the ATM counter, it is clear that first transaction for Rs.10,000/- was successful but second transaction for Rs.5000/- was not successful. In the next minute of first transaction the machine clearly informed that it could not process the request for payment. Subsequently on the same day the amount was credited to the account of the petitioner. Officer of the State Bank, Paresh Chandra Roy stated that a customer could withdraw Rs.20,000/- from his account by  single stroke from ATM of the bank. If the petitioner could  withdraw Rs.20,000/- so at a time she could withdraw Rs.15,000/- but when her request for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was not successful then she tried for withdrawal of Rs.5000/- but her request was not processed by the machine. It is not done and subsequently amount was credited. State Bank authority produced the statement of disbursement cash from the ATM counter on 28.07.14. On that date Rs.8,56,600/- was disbursed. Rs.10,000/- was also shown successfully disbursed. But the machine which can not  process just after one minute admittedly also may not work when the petitioner placed her request for Rs.10,000/- earlier. It can not be said that machine is always in working condition. CC TV installed at the ATM counter. But according to O.P.W. 1, Paresh Chandra Roy, Manager it only could take the image of the person who used the ATM up to the chest level. So, from the CC TV camera it can not be ascertained whether the amount was withdrawn or not. The Opposite parties failed to produce details about the pending balance in the counter on 28.07.14. It only given a statement of disbursement nothing else. From this it can not be said that transaction was successful. If we believe the machine only not the man then O.P. has a good case. But the O.P. did not engage any expert or mechanic to support that machine was working properly whole day on 28.07.14. It is clear from the machine report that sometimes it can not process the request. So, we can not say that machine always carry the request successfully and its report is true. We rather believe the petitioner who tried to get Rs.10,000/-, failed and then wanted to get Rs.5000/- but her request for second time also not processed. We decide that the first request also not processed like the second request just after one minute. The machine should have refund the amount through reverse system just second transaction but it was not done. So, therefore, it can not be said that machine was working properly whole day as net problem some time occurs. Petitioner therefore is entitled to get back Rs.10,000/- which she did not receive for improper working of the machine. Her request for second withdrawal was turned down by the  machine just after one minute. Without examining the machine and without any proper enquiry, O.P. turned down request of petitions. This is deficiency of service. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency of service of the opposite party. Also she is entitled to get Rs.1000/- for cost of litigation. Both the points are decided accordingly in favour of the petitioner. 

8.        In view of the above findings over the two points this petition is partly allowed. Opposite party, State Bank authority, Regional Manager, Chief Manager and Branch Manager are directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) to the petitioner also they are to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) for deficiency of service as compensation and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) for cost of litigation. We direct the O.P., State Bank authority to pay Rs.21,000/-(Rupees twenty one thousand) to the petitioner within one month, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.    

                Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.