State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of Patiala vs Sumit Kumar And Another on 9 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 337 / 2010
State Bank of Patiala
A Body Corporate
constituted under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959
having its Head Office at The Mall, Patiala
and a Branch Office amongst other places at
Devpura, Haridwar through its Branch Manager
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2
Versus
1. Sh. Sumit Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan
R/o 336, Gudhal Road
Jwalapur, District Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. State Bank of India
Branch Vikramaditya Marg
Lucknow, U.P. through its Branch Manager
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1
Sh. V.K. Arora, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
None for Respondent No.1
Sh. Gyaneshwar Thakral, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 09/08/2012
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 21.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 43 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party No. 2 - appellant to deposit sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the account of the complainant and also to pay damages of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.2
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is having an account with the opposite party No. 1 - State Bank of India. On 03.10.2008, the complainant used his ATM card in the ATM of the opposite party No. 2 - appellant, State Bank of Patiala for withdrawal of his salary amount, but the amount could not be withdrawn. However, sum of Rs. 10,000/- was shown as withdrawn from his account. The complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties, but no action was taken. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The appellant filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the transaction of the complainant was successfully completed. It was also pleaded that while tallying the amount, sum of Rs. 10,000/- has not been shown as excess amount. The opposite party No. 1 - respondent No. 2 also filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the consumer complaint is based on wrong facts.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 21.09.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 2 and also perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 - complainant.
36. The complainant has come up with the case that on 03.10.2008, he used the ATM of the appellant for withdrawal of sum of Rs. 10,000/-. However, the said amount was not remitted him, but shown as withdrawal from his account. The complainant has tried to show that the ATM in question was not working properly and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was, in fact, not remitted him and was wrongly shown as withdrawal and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was wrongly debited from his account, so as to show the credit balance as Rs. 339/-.
7. There are copies of ATM Customer Advice's of the ATM in question on record (Paper Nos. 27 to 28). On 10.03.2008 at 15:37, the complainant used his ATM card for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- and as alleged by him, the said amount was not remitted to him and the remaining available balance was shown as Rs. 339/-. At the same time, i.e., 15:37, he again used his ATM card, but the same was not processed by the ATM and the remark was shown as "Sorry unable to process". Again on the same day at 15:39, the complainant again used his ATM card, but the card did not process again and the remark was once again shown as "Sorry unable to process". On the same day at 15:40, the complainant used his ATM card and opted for balance inquiry and the transaction was successfully completed. At 15:49, the complainant used his ATM card for mini statement and at that time also, the transaction was successfully completed. Then again, at 16:12, the complainant used his ATM card, but the card did not process again and the remark was shown as "Sorry unable to process". The complainant again used his ATM card at 16:13 for balance inquiry and the transaction was successfully completed. These all advices show that the ATM was not properly working and there was some problem / shortcoming in the same. The bank has not filed any evidence to show that the remark "Sorry unable to process" has been 4 shown by the ATM on account of any mistake on the part of the complainant in performing the transaction or on account of performing any wrong transaction, to which he was not eligible or legally entitled, i.e., to say he tried to withdraw the amount in excess of the credit balance lying in his account etc. Although the bank has pleaded that there was no defect in the ATM in question and that while tallying the account for the said day, there was no excess balance, but we can not lose sight of the evidence and material on record that the ATM Customer Advice's on record, which prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the ATM in question was not properly working. There is a newspaper cutting at Paper No. 29 on the record of the appeal, which states that the ATM of State Bank of India on two occasions, has remitted more amount than the amount demanded by the customer. Although the said news does not pertain to the ATM in question, but the same rule out the possibility that the ATM's can not act in such a manner so as to remit more amount than demanded by the customer.
8. The complainant has also specifically pleaded that he has immediately lodged the complaint with the appellant, but no satisfactory action was taken by the appellant. When the matter was brought to the notice of the appellant immediately by the complainant, the appellant should have procured the record and should have procured the transaction No. 6329 log in question, but the appellant did not do so. There is a copy of Customer Engineer Call Report on record (Paper No. 34), which shows that the ATM in question was checked by the Engineer and in the remarks, he has stated, "Transaction No. 6329 log is six months old and not recoverable". This also shows that the appellant has not taken the grievance of the complainant seriously and has acted in a callous manner.
59. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter and has passed a reasoned order, thereby directing the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the account of the complainant. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of damages of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum can not be said to be on the higher side. We do not find any force in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K