State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Ashok Kumar & Others on 14 September, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 62 / 2016
1. State Bank of India, Branch I.I.P., Dehradun through
Ms. Shailja Negi, Present Branch Manager
State Bank of India, Branch I.I.P., Dehradun
2. General Manager, SBI Global I.T. Centre
CBD Belapur, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai - 400 614
Maharashtra through Appellant No. 1
State Bank of India, Branch I.I.P., Dehradun through
Ms. Shailja Negi, Present Branch Manager
State Bank of India, Branch I.I.P., Dehradun
...... Appellants / Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3
Versus
1. Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o late Kundan Singh Rawat
R/o Divya Vihar, Miyanwala, P.O. Harrawala
District Dehradun, Uttarakhand
...... Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Punjab National Bank
ATM Mohkampur, Dehradun through
Branch Manager, Vidhan Sabha Branch
Punjab National Bank, Vidhan Sabha, Dehradun
...... Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. Ravinder Singh, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 14/09/2022
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 420 of 2012; Sh. Ashok 2 Kumar Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India and others, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellants and respondent No. 2 (opposite parties to the consumer complaint) were, jointly and severally, directed to pay sum of Rs. 6,000/- to respondent No. 1 - complainant together with Rs. 4,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs, within a period of 30 days', failing which the above amount was directed to carry interest @8% p.a. from the date of impugned judgment and order till realization.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the respondent No. 1 - complainant is an accountholder of State Bank of India and having Savings Bank Account No. 30049173611. In regard to the said account, the complainant was issued ATM card No. 6220180235900054166. On 27.07.2012 at about 9:16 a.m., the complainant visited the ATM of Punjab National Bank, Mohkampur for withdrawal of Rs. 6,000/-, but the amount was not disbursed to him and transaction slip showing code as "5949" was received from the ATM and the amount of Rs. 6,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant. On 27.07.2012, the complainant lodged a written complaint with State Bank of India, followed by complaint dated 10.09.2012, but no action was taken on the complaint lodged by the complainant. On 11.09.2012, the complainant received a letter from opposite party No. 3 (appellant No. 2 herein), wherein it was stated that the complaint has been forwarded to the concerned branch, but no action was taken. Therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.
3. The appellant No. 1 filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that on inquiry from Punjab National Bank, ATM whereof was used by the complainant for 3 withdrawal of the amount, it transpired that the ATM transaction carried out by the complainant was successful, which was duly informed to the complainant. There is no liability of the appellants. The appellant No. 2 filed written statement before the District Commission, stating therein that the transaction made by the complainant was successful, hence response code "000" was shown.
4. The respondent No. 2 filed written statement before the District Commission, pleading that the liability, if any, to pay any amount to the complainant is that of the appellants.
5. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2016, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.
6. We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants & respondent No. 1 and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that the transaction in question performed by the complainant at the ATM of Punjab National Bank, was successful and the amount of Rs. 6,000/- was disbursed in his favour, hence the said amount was rightly debited in his account and by doing so, no deficiency in service has been committed by State Bank of India. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 - complainant submitted that the transaction in question was unsuccessful and the 4 amount was not disbursed to the complainant, but the same was wrongly debited in his account and the view so taken by learned District Commission per impugned judgment and order, is perfectly justified, warranting no interference.
8. Having considered the respective submissions raised before us, it would not be out of place to mention here that Punjab National Bank, whose ATM was used by the complainant for the subject transaction and who was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 to the consumer complaint before the District Commission, has nowhere stated in their written statement that the transaction in question was successful and the amount was disbursed to the complainant and he has made a false claim. To the contrary, in paragraph No. 6 of the written statement, it has been stated that complaint regarding non-disbursement of the amount from the ATM and debit of the said amount from the account, is to be disposed of within 7 days', failing which, the accountholder is entitled to get penalty @Rs. 100/- per day from the bank. Thus, the bank whose ATM was used by the complainant, has not denied the claim so made by the complainant. It is further pertinent to mention here, as is stated above, the consumer complaint was allowed by the District Commission, jointly and severally, against all the opposite parties to the consumer complaint, but the Punjab National Bank has not come up in appeal, so as to challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission, which remotely proves the case of the complainant.
9. On behalf of the appellants, reliance was placed on letter dated 11.03.2013 (Paper No. 45) issued by appellant No. 2, wherein it has been stated that from record, it has been observed that the transaction was successful. It has also been stated that on 27.07.2012, the customer branch lodged a complaint under category "customer"
5account debited, but "cash not dispensed" against transaction No. 5949 and ASC raised a charge back on Punjab National Bank. On 01.08.2012, Punjab National Bank had represented the charge back by providing the EJ log copy, wherein the transaction is shown as successful. However, on 11.09.2012, the branch had re-lodged the complaint and ASC has again taken up the case with Punjab National Bank. In response, Punjab National Bank has advised that no excess cash was found in the respective ATM. Along with the said letter, copy of EJ log has been attached, wherein the response code "000" has been shown against the subject transaction.
10. The above-mentioned letter is dated 11.03.2013, whereas the written statement by Punjab National Bank was filed before the District Commission on 30.01.2013. If the matter was again taken up by ASC with Punjab National Bank on 11.09.2012 and it was found that the transaction was successful and no excess cash was found in the ATM, the said fact should have been pleaded by Punjab National Bank in their written statement, but as is stated above, there is no such pleading from their side, nor there is any document having been produced by the said bank to show that the cash was dispensed in complainant's favour. It would not be out of place to mention here that in the written statement filed by Punjab National Bank before the District Commission, the said bank has nowhere pleaded that the transaction in question performed by the complainant was successful and cash was disbursed / dispensed in his favour and also that on checking, excess / extra cash was not found in the ATM. The said bank has not stated anything on the merits of the case and has simply stated that if the complainant is entitled to any relief, the same is to be granted against the appellants, who only are to be held responsible. It is also worth mentioning that on the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of Punjab National Bank (respondent No. 2 herein) to submit 6 the defence of the said bank that the subject ATM transaction was successful.
11. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellants on the fact that response code "000" has been shown against the subject transaction. On behalf of the complainant, some literature has been filed to show that response code "000" is shown against wrong denomination of notes; ATM may be out of cash; network or power failure or technical / mechanical snag in the ATM. Hence, merely on the basis that response code "000" was shown, it can not be safely concluded that the transaction was successful, unless there is cogent and reliable evidence in that regard on record, which is missing in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellants cited judgment and order dated 07.02.2018 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 218 of 2014; State Bank of India Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar and another. Merely because the complainant has used the ATM of Punjab National Bank, the entire liability can not be fastened upon the said bank. The complainant is an accountholder of State Bank of India and the said bank can not escape from its liability in the event of wrongful debit of amount from the account of the customer and can not be allowed to say that since the customer has used other's bank ATM, the liability, if any, is that of the said bank. Hence, the above cited decision does not provide any help to the appellants.
12. Thus, by the documentary evidence available on record, the case of the complainant is duly proved and we are in full agreement with the findings recorded by learned District Commission.
13. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cogent 7 reasoning and the same does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Commission. The appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.
14. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
15. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K