21.06.2017
MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
Instant Appeal under section 15 of the C P Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 22/09/2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit I, Kolkata in Complaint Case No. CC/451/2015 rejecting the complaint case with the observation that the Ld. District Forum did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue. The Complainant, however, was allowed liberty to file the case before the appropriate Forum on the self same cause of action.
The facts of the case, in a nutshell, were that the Appellant/Complainant, the holder of a Savings Bank Account in Respondent/OP-1 Bank applied his ATM card in respect of the said Savings Bank Account to withdraw cash amounting to Rs.5,000/-from the ATM of Respondent/OP no-2 branch at Anna Nagar, Chennai. The ATM responded to the commanded withdrawal delivering to the Appellant/Complainant hundred rupee notes, only five in number. That means the ATM delivered Rs.4, 500/- less than the amount that he commanded for withdrawal. The subject S B Account, however, reflected a debit of Rs. 5,000/-in the said disputed transaction.
The matter was brought to the notice of the Respondent/OP-1 and Respondent/OP N0-2 Bank branches at Annanagar, Chennai. The U.Co. Bank, Southern Avenue Branch, being the parent Bank where the subject Account was used to be maintained was also informed of the incident. Repeated communication made by the Appellant/Complainant to the Respondents/OPs requesting them to take necessary action for refunding the amount delivered less, yielded no fruitful result. No C.C.T.V footage was furnished to the Appellant/Complainant by the Respondents/OPs on demand, rather, the claim for refund was repudiated through their communication which, as alleged, was categorical that the transaction , as per record, was successful and no excess amount was found to have been left in the bin as well.
The aggrieved Appellant/Complainant then filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum which the impugned judgment and order relates to.
Heard LD. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.
The representative appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant submitted that the ATM card in respect of the S. B. Account being maintained at Respondent/OP-1 Bank branch was applied by him in one of the ATM counters of the Respondent/OP No.2 at Annanagar, Chennai.
As submitted, the ATM delivered only five number of one hundred rupee notes, that is, Rs.500/- only in total against a commanded withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. In other words, as the representative continued, an amount of Rs. 4,500/-was delivered less by the subject ATM although, the subject S B Account revealed a debit of Rs.5,000/-in the transaction in question.
The OP Banks did not make any refund of the said amount of Rs.4,500/-delivered less by the ATM in spite of constant persuasions being made at all levels by the Appellant/Complainant. As submitted, the C C T V footage of the ATM for the period in which the transaction in question had taken place was also not furnished by the Respondents/OPs in spite of demands made formally to that effect by the Appellant/Complainant.
The representative maintained that the Appellant/Complainant had to go to Chennai once again for filing FIR before the local P S and thereby had to incur an additional cost of Rs. 18,060/-as passage fare.
The representative continued that the Ld. District Forum rejected the complaint without appreciating the fact that the Appellant/Complainant, being a layman, was not supposed to have any concept of territorial jurisdiction.
With the above submission, the representative prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/OP No-1, per contra, submitted that the P. S. Tollygunge which is the address of the Appellant/complainant and also of the Respondent/OP No. 1 Bank branch, was under coverage of the District Forum, Unit III whereas the instant complaint has been filed before the Ld. District Forum, unit I which had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
As regards claim of the value of the airfare to the tune of Rs.18,060/- which the Appellant/Complainant, allegedly, had to spend for going to Chennai for filing the FIR before the local P S , the Ld. Advocate submitted that it was unbelievable that a person should spend Rs. 18,060/-for recovering an amount of Rs.4,500/-.The Appellant/Complainant, as the Ld. Advocate continued, must have had some other personal business for which he had to visit Chennai and filed the FIR in course of that personal visit.
As submitted, the record showed that the transaction was successful and apparently, there was no reason to disbelieve the recorded statement of transaction.
As regards non-delivery of CCTV footage, the Ld. Advocate referred to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in [State Bank of India – vs. – K. K. Bhalla], reported in 2011 (2) CPR 26 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission observed that the non-production of the CCTV footage on the part of the Appellant/O.P. could not conclusively determine that the money was withdrawn fraudulently without using ATM Card PIN number.
With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order.
Perused the papers on record. It appeared that the complaint was not heard on merit as the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit I, where the complaint was filed, had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.
Perused the Complaint. It appeared that Tollygunge P S where the Appellant/Complainant used to reside and where the Respondent/OP No. 1 Bank branch was located fell within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Kolkata Unit III.
Since the Ld. District Forum lacked the territorial jurisdiction to try the case, the Ld. District Forum had rightly rejected the complaint with liberty to the complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate Consumer Forum.
In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum.
Hence, ordered that the Appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest affirming the impugned judgment and order.
