State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yamuna Singh vs State Bank Of India on 3 January, 2024
Appeal No. Sh. Yamuna Singh 03.01.2024
117 of 2018 Vs.
State Bank of India and Another
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Admission : 05.09.2018
Date of Final Hearing : 07.12.2023
Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2024
First Appeal No. 117 / 2018
Sh. Yamuna Singh S/o Late Sh. Chakradhar Singh
R/o E.W.S.V. 882, Awas Vikas Colony
Udhamsingh Nagar, Uttarakhand
(Through: Sh. Rajesh Devliyal, Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
1. State Bank of India
Branch Indra Chowk, Rudrapur
Udhamsingh Nagar, Uttarakhand
2. State Bank of India
Krishi Vibhag Branch Kashipur, Bypass Road, Rudrapur
District Udhamsingh Nagar, Uttarakhand
Through Branch Manager
(Through: Sh. S. Parashar, Advocate)
..... Respondents
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 90 of 2016 styled as Yamuna Singh Vs. State 1 Appeal No. Sh. Yamuna Singh 03.01.2024 117 of 2018 Vs. State Bank of India and Another Bank of India and another, wherein and whereby the complaint was dismissed.
2. According to the complaint, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such are as such that the complainant is an account holder of saving bank account No. 30200602618 in the Bank of opposite party No. 2. On dated 07.03.2016 the complainant went to the Bank for obtaining ATM facility and put inside his ATM card in the ATM machine, but due to the hang of ATM machine, the information put by the complainant was not accepted by the ATM machine. The complainant waited for a long time for information displayed on the screen. After some time he went to his house. Thereafter, the complainant has got an information on his mobile that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- were debited from his account, thereafter the complainant immediately went to the ATM, where the guard of the ATM has told him that the ATM is not properly working since a long time, if he desires, then he would make his complaint through toll-free number. The complainant lodged his complaint on dated 08.03.2016 through toll-free number wherefrom it was assured that the matter shall be attended at the earliest and assured to return the money. On dated 17.03.2016 the complainant obtained a massage that 'your amount has been deposited in your account.' The dispute was resolved by the Bank, hence the complainant became relaxed. On dated 04.04.2016, the complainant has got another massage on his mobile that 'An amount of Rs. 40,000/- is kept on hold and he will not be able to withdraw such amount.' By such act of the Bank, the complainant has become mentally harassed; he met with the Branch Manager of opposite party No. 1, who showed CCTV footage where no amount was taken by the complainant through ATM machine. Thus, the complainant has to suffer trouble in the treatment of his pregnant wife and new born child. The complainant has dispatched a legal notice on dated 09.04.2016 with the request to pay such 2 Appeal No. Sh. Yamuna Singh 03.01.2024 117 of 2018 Vs. State Bank of India and Another amount, but in vain. Hence, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.
3. The opposite parties have submitted their written statement alleging that the ATM card was issued to the complainant and the complainant had made a complaint regarding the wrongful withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 40,000/-. It is further averred that as soon as the complainant went to the office of the Branch Manager and he was replied immediately about his complaint on dated 05.04.2016 and as per EJ's report, the transaction has shown as successful. As the complainant has lodged the complaint for wrongful withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/-, hence the same amount was kept on hold for ascertaining the true facts. Hence, the complaint was false and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence available on record, passed the judgment and order dated 13.07.2018 wherein and whereby the complaint was dismissed.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, the complainant as appellant has preferred the present appeal. It is alleged that the District Commission has ignored the facts, pleadings and merits of the case. It is further alleged by the appellant that in the CCTV footage nothing is shown that from the ATM machine the appellant has obtained Rs. 40,000/- on dated 07.03.2016. As per CCTV footage, it is shown that the ATM card was put inside the ATM machine by the appellant and came out from the ATM machine. But it is not shown that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was obtained by the appellant. It is further averred that the District Commission has also ignored the fact that on dated 17.03.2016 the Bank deposited Rs. 40,000/- and on dated 04.04.2016 the same amount was 3 Appeal No. Sh. Yamuna Singh 03.01.2024 117 of 2018 Vs. State Bank of India and Another kept on hold. If there have been any frivolous intention of the complainant, then it would have definitely withdrawn by the complainant. Thus, the impugned judgment is perverse and not in accordance with law. Thereby the District Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction which was not vested in it, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It is evident that the respondent - Bank has not submitted the CCTV footage before the District Commission whereas it is averred by the Bank that the CCTV footage was shown to the complainant in the Bank. In the absence of such footage, we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be ascertained that after withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/- from the ATM machine, the complainant had kept the same in his pocket of trouser or shirt or in his wallet.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents - Bank has stated that in the CCTV footage, it is not recorded that the amount has been withdrawn from the ATM machine or not due to the safety reasons, but it is true that if the same amount is withdrawn and come out from the ATM machine, the complainant or account holder shall definitely keep the same in his pocket of trouser or shirt or in his wallet, which shall be clearly recorded in the CCTV footage because the complainant was standing in front of CCTV camera. Apart from it, the respondents - Bank has been unable to explain that as per EJ's report, if the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the appellant, then why the same was credited in the account of appellant by the Bank on dated 17.03.2016.
4 Appeal No. Sh. Yamuna Singh 03.01.2024
117 of 2018 Vs.
State Bank of India and Another
9. The respondents - Bank has also not specified if such amount does not belong to the appellant, then from whose account the same was withdrawn or credited to the account of the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the disputed amount was on hold, but the Bank has not been able to show that the appellant has obtained the money as per CCTV footage.
10. A perusal of the extract of statement of account (paper No. 36) has shown that on dated 07.03.2016, the disputed amount was shown withdrawn, but the same was credited in the account of the appellant on dated 17.03.2016. The deposit of such amount after a gap of 10 days had itself revealed that the said amount was shown as illegally withdrawn, therefore, the Bank has credited the same to the account of the appellant. It is also surprising fact that if any wrongful transaction is made, then such mistake usually comes within the knowledge of bank or bank employee or branch manager of such bank that such illegal transaction has mistakenly done and the rectification to such mistake has also be made on the very same date, but the Bank has sent a letter dated 05.04.2016 to the appellant after a lapse of 17 or 18 days which has also proved that the Bank did not intend to pay the said disputed amount to the appellant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Rs. 40,000/- which was illegally withdrawn from the account of the appellant should be paid to the appellant. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that by not paying such amount to the appellant, the respondents - Bank has committed deficiency in service and has not provided adequate service to its customer. We are of the view that the District Commission has not properly and duly considered the facts, pleadings, evidence and merits of the case and has passed the impugned judgment perversely and avoiding the evidence available on record. We are also of the considered opinion that the District Commission has not exercised the jurisdiction which was vested in it and exercised the jurisdiction with material illegality and irregularity exceeding its power 5 Appeal No. Sh. Yamuna Singh 03.01.2024 117 of 2018 Vs. State Bank of India and Another while passing of the impugned judgment. We hold that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the District Commission, Udhamsingh Nagar is set aside and the complaint stands as allowed. No order as to costs of the appeal. The Bank - respondents are directed to pay the amount which is kept on hold to the appellant within period of 30 days from the date of this judgment, failing which the appellant shall be entitled to get simple interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of this judgment till its actual payment to the appellant.
12. 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. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 03.01.2024 6