State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Srimanta Kumar Mandal vs Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., Baruipur ... on 8 December, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
S.C. CASE NO. : FA/630/2013
(Arising out
of order dated 25.04.2013 of Consumer Case No. 159/2012of D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata,
Unit - II)
Date of Filing : 13.06.2013 Date of Final Order : 08.12.2014
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
MR. SRIMANTA KUMAR MANDAL
Son of Satish Chandra Mandal
Resident of Village
Beliadanga
(Panchanantala), P.O.
Dakshin Barasat,
Dist South 24 Parganas,
Pin 743372.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
(1) Manager,
Axis Bank Ltd.
Baruipur
Branch, Kolkata 700144
(2) State
Bank of India, Samriddhi Bhavan,
Customer
Grievance Cell, P.S. Hare
Street, Kolkata 700 001.
(3) Branch
Manager, Representing State Bank
Of
India, 77/2A, Hazra Road Branch,
Kolkata 700029.
(4) General
Manager, Axis Bank Ltd.,
7, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Mr.
Kalidas Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Mrs. Mridula Roy.
MEMBER : Mr. Tarapada Gangopadhyay.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. Dipten Roy,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Mr. Surajit
Auddy,
Ld. Advocate.
Mr. Debtanay Banerjee,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order being No. 11 dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit II in Complaint Case No. 159 of 2012 dismissing the same on contest without cost.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the impugned judgment was passed relying upon case laws passed by the Honble National Commission and since those are not passed by the Honble Supreme Court the same are not binding upon the District Forum and only the Video Footage of that relevant point of time is required to adjudicate the instant case.
The case of the Complainant before the Ld. District Forum in brief, is that he was an account holder (A/c No. 259010100039002) with the Axis Bank on 20.09.2011 he made an attempt to withdraw an amount of Rs.9,000/- from an SBI ATM, Hazra Road, Kolkata but no amount came out although valid slip was delivered. Subsequently, on 21.09.2011 he lodged complaint with Axis Bank, Baruipur Branch in reply of which the said bank informed him that the transaction was successful. The Complainant made several correspondences thereafter to the RBI, Ombudsman, Kolkata,Telebanking Customer Care unit of Axis Bank, the Chief Manager of SBI, Kolkata, SBI Mumbai and Axis Bank Ltd. Mumbai to that effect, but to no avail. Hence, he filed the complaint case praying for direction upon the O.Ps to revert the sum of Rs.9,000/- and credit to his account, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for prolonged harassment and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 i.e. State Bank of India contested the case and filed Written Version stating, inter alia, that receiving the complaint from the Complainant the SBI through the Axis Bank made an enquiry and found that the transaction was successful.
In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the ATM was not functioning properly and the same would be revealed from the documents namely, i) ATM LOG and ii) Customer Transaction Copy which show that two transactions occurred in the same time and there is no difference even for at least one second. Therefore, as the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted, the data recorded by the defective machine is not authentic at all.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent State Bank of India has submitted that since same noting were made in three documents i.e. in ATM Switch Centre, ATM LOG the time noted therein cannot be called in question.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Axis Bank has submitted that the Complainant/Appellant has no connection with the Axis Bank. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Axis Bank has further submitted that the documents show that the transaction was successful.
Having heard submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the Complainant has alleged about non-disbursement of money by two ATM machines after swiping his ATM card and inserting PIN. But, subsequently, in the ATM Slip for statement of account, it is shown that the amount for which he operated the ATM has been disbursed. The Appellant put much emphasis on the ground that had the video footage been produced before the Ld. District Forum, it would have been evident therefrom that he did not succeed to withdraw the money through the ATM. It appears from the J.P. LOG of the ATM that the transaction was successful, but the Appellant disputed the same stating in his ground of appeal that . transaction is made successfully did not prove that it was made only by the customer. In fact, the custodian of the ATM Card is the card holder. If he discloses the PIN to other and hand over the said card to someone and the latter withdraws any amount from his account by using the ATM Card, the Bank cannot be held liable for that. Further, the video footage is not essential to determine whether the transaction became successful or not. Further the Appellant Complainant was not aware that he had pressed the Cancel buttom after having failed to withdraw the money. Leaving the ATM counter without pressing the cancel bottom after an unsuccessful attempt of withdrawal of money creates every possibility for withdrawal of the same by stranger and in that case the bank cannot be held responsible for misuse of the ATM Card.
However, the order passed by the Honble National Commission is binding upon all the State Commissions and the District Fora as the Honble National Commission as per decision reported in 2008 CTJ 954 (NC) NCDRC Bar Association (Regd.) Vs. Davinder Malhotra and Others.
Under such circumstances, we are of opinion that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum.
In the result, the appeal fails Hence, ORDERED that the instant appeal is dismissed on contest without cost. The impugned judgment is affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT