State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Dr. Purusottam Lal Tiwari & Anr. on 29 January, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.FA/12/634
Instituted on 06.11.12
State Bank of India,
Through: Branch Manager,
Kutchery Branch, Kutchery Chowk,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1.Dr. Purusottam Lal Tiwari, S/o: Late Shri Rajaram Tiwari, R/o: C‐17, Jeevan Vihar Colony, RAIPUR (C.G.)
2. Punjab National Bank, Station Road Branch, Code No.1066, RAIPUR (C.G.). ... Respondents.
Appeal No.FA/12/646 Instituted on 09.11.12 Punjab National Bank, Through: General Manager, Shri R.K. Sahu, Station Road Branch, Code No.1066, RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Dr. Purusottam Lal Tiwari, S/o: Late Shri Rajaram Tiwari, R/o: C‐17, Jeevan Vihar Colony, Telibandha, Post Office ‐ Ravigram, RAIPUR (C.G.)
2.State Bank of India, Kutchery Branch, RAIPUR (C.G.). ... Respondents.
PRESENT: ‐ HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES IN BOTH APPEALS: ‐ Shri N.K. Shrivastava, for State Bank of India.
// {PAGE } // Respondent no.1, present in person.
Shri Jatin Joshi, for Punjab National Bank.
ORDER Dated: 29/01/2013 PER: ‐ HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT Feeling aggrieved by order dated 09.10.12, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No.CC/12/164, these two appeals have been preferred respectively by OP Nos.1 & 2 of the complaint case, who have been directed to pay jointly or severally Rs.10,000/‐ to the respondent / complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of transaction till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/‐ as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/‐ as cost of litigation. The District Forum found the allegations of deficiency in service proved against both the OPs, the appellants herein. For the purpose of convenience hereinafter parties will be referred as per their original status before the District Forum. As the questions involved in these two appeals are common, therefore are being decided by this common order analogously with a direction to place original of this order in the record of appeal No.FA/12/634 and a copy thereof in the record of other appeal.
// {PAGE } //
2. Indisputably, the complainant was having a Savings Bank Account No.10470134331 with OP No.1 State Bank of India, Kutcheri Branch, Raipur. The case of the complainant before District Forum was that on 17.06.11 for the purpose of withdrawing Rs.10,000/‐ from the Savings Bank Account he used ATM of Punjab National Bank, Shastri Chowk, Raipur. The allegation is that the amount was not delivered by that ATM and therefore on the same date he was required to access the ATM of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur and from there he withdrew Rs.15,000/‐ from the Savings Bank Account. It has further been alleged by him that after withdrawal of Rs.15,000/‐ he immediately went to the Bank for updating his passbook and on such updation it revealed that withdrawal of Rs.10,000/‐ has also been shown in his account from the ATM of Punjab National Bank, whereas no such amount was delivered by the ATM of the Punjab National Bank and the transaction was not successful. Then he made a complaint on the next day to his Bank. Later on the Bank informed him that as per the J P Roll of the ATM and the electronic data, which are available, the transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/‐ was successful and there was no defect in the ATM also, therefore, the allegation of deficiency in service was not found proved. After receiving this letter the complainant approached the Banking // {PAGE } // Ombudsman but no relief was granted, so he filed complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
3. The OPs of the complaint case in their separate written version have averred that Rs.10,000/‐ were actually withdrawn by the complainant from the Shastri Chowk ATM outer and electronic data are there to show that the transaction was successful. It has also been averred that the State Bank of India has also paid that amount to the Punjab National Bank and when the cash available in the ATM on that particular date was checked and transaction were also tallied then it was found that there was no excess cash in the machine & each and every transactions were properly held and transaction were successful including the transaction of the complainant. In this way both the OPs, in their separate written versions, have refuted the allegation of deficiency in service.
4. Learned District Forum by the impugned order has come to the conclusion that the ATM Balance Sheet and photo clippings of that ATM of 17.06.11 were not produced before the District Forum and it could have been proved only through the photo clippings that the // {PAGE } // transaction was successful or not and that the amount was received by the complainant himself. It has also been held that if the ATM was being operated without any CC TV camera then it also comes in the category of deficiency in service. Thus, the Banks were found deficient in providing service and so have been directed to pay the amount of transaction along with compensation to the complainant.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by all parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
6. Learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank has very vehemently submitted that the complainant was not a 'consumer' of the Punjab National Bank because no fee was paid by him to the Punjab National Bank for providing any Banking Service. It has also been submitted that the transaction was successful as per the record available in respect of that particular ATM and therefore the allegations has wrongly been found proved by the District Forum. Counsel for the State Bank of India has also supported these arguments and submitted that if there was some defect in the Machine and amount was actually not delivered by that Machine, then the Punjab National Bank was deficient in service and so the District // {PAGE } // Forum has committed an error in passing an award against the State Bank of India also.
7. The complainant, who was present in person, during his arguments while countering the submissions of learned counsels of the OPs, has submitted that on account of many important discrepancies in the transaction slip, made available by the Punjab National Bank in respect of that transaction and particularly on account of discrepancy that after entry of TXN No.7217 there is mention of TXN No.7219 and entry regarding TXN No.7218 was missing, therefore the electronic data, which have been produced, become doubtful. It has also been submitted by the complainant that when the amount was not delivered by the Machine then immediately he was required to access another ATM of State Bank of India and from there amount was received and then immediately he made complaint. It has been submitted by him that the District Forum has not committed any mistake in allowing the complaint and the order passed by the District Forum calls for no interference.
8. We have considered the aforesaid arguments in the light of record of the District Forum. For the purpose of showing that // {PAGE } // transaction of Rs.10,000/‐ was successful copy of J P Roll, which contains the data regarding different transactions, on that date, has been brought on record before District Forum. Apart from it 'List of ATM Authorisation Response Codes' has also been brought on record. Punjab National Bank has also brought on record the 'Cash Balance Report' in respect of the ATM in question.
9. From the list of ATM authorization response codes, it appears that when the transaction is approved and okay with display of balance, the code is '00'. In the copy of electronic J P Roll in respect of TXN No.7219, which is for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/‐, response code is mentioned as '000'. Meaning thereby the transaction was successful, the transaction was approved and okay with display of balance and the available balance which was shown was Rs.1200.96p. and the date has been shown as 17.06.11, the time was 11:31 i.e. 11:31 AM. The ATM ID was N3106600.
10. So far as the entry regarding TXN No.7217 and 7220 are concerned they are in respect of transaction of other persons and the missing entry regarding TXN No.7218 cannot be given much weightage because it is just possible that the transaction could not be // {PAGE } // completed on account of many reasons including wrong data feeding or incomplete data feeding etc., that is why the Electronic Sheet was not printed in respect of that transaction and merely because in the photocopy TXN No.7218 has not been shown, the entry in respect of TXN No.7219 cannot be doubted, as it is an electronically generated document from the ATM, which was an Automated Teller Machine performing its function automatically without any human interference and it is not possible for a 3rd person, apart from the person who himself performing his transaction, to interfere in the function of the Machine during transaction and when the Machine was showing that there was successful transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/‐ from a particular Bank Account, then there was no reason to disbelieve this electronically generated statement from the ATM itself.
11. It has also been argued by the complainant that his passbook was showing that the balance on that particular date after withdrawal of Rs.10,000/‐ was Rs.5,819/‐, whereas the slip filed by the OPs shows that the balance was Rs.1200.96p. and so there was discrepancy. There may be some discrepancy in respect of balance, which was being shown in the passbook of the complainant on later updation and the balance shown in the slip of transaction of ATM of another Bank after transaction, but merely on the basis of this discrepancy it cannot be // {PAGE } // said that the ATM of the Punjab National Bank was wrongly showing successful withdrawal of Rs.10,000/‐. It is worth mentioning that earlier balance in the account was Rs.8,192.04p. on 06.06.11 and then on 06.06.11 itself Rs.607.00 was deposited, then the balance became Rs.8,799.04p. and thereafter on the date of transaction in question, i.e. 17.06.11 an amount of Rs.7,020.00 was deposited and the balance became Rs.15,819.04p. out of which Rs.10,000/‐ were withdrawn. Thus, it appears that frequent transactions were made in the Savings Bank Account and it is just possible that a particular transaction could not be included by feedings its data in the computer and so there may be some difference in the balance, but that never means that transaction of Rs.10,000/‐ was not successful. Apart from it, if the complainant had not received Rs.10,000/‐ from ATM of Punjab National Bank, then at least some slip showing unsuccessful transaction & balance must have been received by him from that ATM or if he had not waited in the ATM Booth till the money was delivered or till the slip was printed and had walked‐out from the Booth, then it was his negligence for which the Bank cannot be faulted.
12. It is also worth mentioning that the complainant was knowing it well that his Bank Account was not having sufficient fund for // {PAGE } // withdrawal of Rs.15,000/‐ and that is why before withdrawal of Rs.15,000/‐ from the ATM of State Bank of India, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, three transactions were made and amount was deposited by him, so the available balance in the account became Rs.20,574.04p. and then only Rs.15,000/‐ was withdrawn. If the balance was already more than Rs.15,000/‐ then there was no necessity of depositing amount by three transactions, had there been no withdrawal of Rs.10,000/‐. These circumstances also show that the complainant was having knowledge that ATM of Punjab National Bank had already shown withdrawal of Rs.10,000/‐ and that is why for subsequent withdrawal of Rs.15,000/‐ he deposited amount in the Bank Account. This circumstance also goes against him and then the electronically printed J P Roll clearly indicates that the withdrawal was successful. During inquiry of complaint of the complainant, the Punjab National Bank had also found the cash amount which was loaded in the ATM and the cash amount which remained as balance at the end of the day was according to the withdrawals and transactions carried out on that date and no excess amount was found. If the withdrawal was unsuccessful then excess amount of Rs.10,000/‐ should have been there, which was not found and this circumstance also goes against the complainant.
// {PAGE } //
13. It is not the case of the complainant that at any point of time he handed over his ATM Card to anyone or that anyone was having information regarding his PIN and unless his particular ATM Card is used and PIN is feed in the ATM, it is not possible for anyone else to withdraw any amount from his Bank Account. Thus, it is clear that no‐one else than the complainant was in position to withdraw any amount from this Bank Account.
14. No rule or Law nor any guideline of Reserve Bank of India has been shown under which it was binding upon each and every Bank to have CC Camera installed in each and every ATM Booth. It is an additional facility which is provided by the Banks in some ATM Booths. So, merely on the ground that CC Camera was not there or that it was not functional or that its photo clipping was not made available, it cannot be held that the Bank was deficient in providing their service.
15. From the aforesaid discussion, we find that as the ATM of the Punjab National Bank was showing the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/‐ was successful, no excess amount was found in the cash balance and the slip of transaction is also showing successful transaction, therefore the // {PAGE } // allegation of deficiency in service against any of the Bank cannot be held proved. The District Forum has committed a mistake in allowing the complaint and therefore both these appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/01/2013 /01/2013