State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chief Manager, State Bank Of India, ... vs Mr. Subhasis Chowdhury on 22 November, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/407/2011 DATE OF FILING : 19.09.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 22.11.2012 APPELLANT The Chief Manager State Bank of India Main Branch, Club Road Jalpaiguri. RESPONDENT Mr. Subhasis Chowdhury Santi Para P.O. & Dist. Jalpaiguri-735101. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. P.K.PalChowdhury, Mr. G.Gupta Roy, Mr. S.Das, Ld. Advocates FOR THE RESPONDENT : In person : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 24.08.2011 passed by Jalpaiguri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in C.C. No. 2011/29, wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint with a direction upon the OP to refund a sum of of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant along with a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards litigation cost.
The case of the Complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the Complainant is a customer of the OP/Bank having savings bank account with ATM Card facility. According to the Complainant, on 16.3.11 the complainant deposited Rs. 6,500/- in his savings bank account and for the purpose of balance enquiry he used the ATM machine being ID No. S10B000095006, but the machine did not respond. Then the Complainant attempted in a adjacent ATM machine situated at the same premises being ID No. S10A000095003, but there was also no response. The Complainant made another attempt when he was successful and the closing balance was depicted at Rs. 20,173.83. It was the further case of the Complainant that on 29.3.11 he attempted to withdraw Rs. 5,000/- by using his ATM card and the same was not possible due to insufficient balance. The Complainant became perplexed and approached the Bank with his passbook, wherefrom he came to know that on 16.3.11 Rs. 20,000/- was withdrawn from his savings bank account leaving a balance of Rs. 173.83. According to the Complainant, the withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/- from the savings bank account of the complainant was due to the deficiency in service at the instance of the OP/Bank and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal.
The OP/Bank contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that it was the Complainant who himself withdrew the amount by utilizing the ATM card and for this, the Bank is not responsible. Question of deficiency in service at the instance of the Bank, as alleged by the Complainant, is not at all tenable. The petition of complaint having been filed on all false and fictitious grounds the same was liable to be dismissed.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the CD produced by the Bank clearly depicted that a third person withdrew the amount and there was no involvement of the Complainant in the said transaction. As the Bank could not explain the situation the Bank was certainly deficient in service as claimed by the Complainant and accordingly, disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the Complainant as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Bank that the Ld. District Forum having utterly failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs has come to a conclusion, which is not at all sustainable under the law.
According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that the ATM machines and counters are not under the control of the Bank and as such, if anything wrong has been committed in the operation of the ATM machine, the Bank cannot be held responsible. According to the Ld. Advocate, when initially the same machine showed a balance of Rs. 20,000/- odd in favour of the Complainant, question of subsequent manipulation at the instance of the Appellant/Bank does not arise at all.
The Ld. District Forum having failed to appreciate the surrounding circumstances the conduct of the parties has arrived at a wrong and improper decision and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant/Bank including the materials on record and the impugned judgement and find that in this case the Complainant/Respondent has put forward a case to the effect that the Complainant in the capacity of a customer of the Bank was enjoying ATM card facility and that initially he deposited some amount and obtained a correct balance by using the ATM card and thereafter on a subsequent date when the complainant attempted to withdraw Rs. 5,000/- by using his ATM card, to his utter surprise the transaction was not successful and subsequently it transpired that there was insufficient balance in the account of the Complainant, inasmuch as, only Rs. 173.83 was left and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was withdrawn by somebody else and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal. The Bank, on the other hand, has taken up a plea to the effect that the ATM machines are not under the control of the Bank itself and when initially the ATM machine performed correctly, it is the complainant who is to explain about the shortfall in his savings bank account and no one including the Bank is not responsible for this. Accordingly, the Bank prayed for dismissal of the case.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has traversed the cases of respective party reasonably well and after analyzing all the materials on record has arrived at a just and proper decision, which, in our opinion, should be confirmed. When the CD in question clearly depicts that somebody else other than the complainant was in the ATM counter for withdrawal of money, the plea adopted by the Bank is not at all tenable and as such, we are unable to accept the proposition so put forward on behalf of the Appellant. However, considering the fact that the Bank is a public institution, we think that the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Ld. District Forum to the Complainant should be reduced to Rs. 20,000/- only.
In the result, the Appeal succeeds in part.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed in part on contest but without any order as to costs.
The impugned judgement stands modified to the extent that the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- so awarded by the Ld. District Forum to the Complainant be reduced to Rs. 20,000/-.
The other portions of the impugned judgement stand unaltered.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT