State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Senior Branch Manager, United Bank Of ... vs Binoy Kumar Roy on 14 January, 2020
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/418/2017 ( Date of Filing : 10 Apr 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 03/01/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/137/2016 of District North 24 Parganas) 1. Senior Branch Manager, United Bank of India Hridaypur Station Road, P.O. - Hridaypur, P.S. - Barasat, Dist. North 24 Pgs., Pin -700 127. 2. The General Manager(Inspection) & Chief Vigilance Officer(CVO), Vigilance Department Riskbase Supervision, Inspectio Dept., Head Qtr., United Bank of India, 11, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata - 700 001. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Binoy Kumar Roy Apanpally, 4th Lane, N.S. Road, Hridaypur, P.S. - Barasat, Pin -700 127, Dist. North 24 Pgs. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Mr. Sasanka Kumar Mandal, Advocate For the Respondent: Dated : 14 Jan 2020 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
In this Appeal, the Order dated 03-01-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in CC/137/2016 has been challenged by the Appellants.
The complaint case relates to alleged unauthorized withdrawal of money from the account of the Appellant.
As the Respondent did not turn up before this Commission despite proper service of notice upon him, the matter was heard ex parte against him.
According to the complaint lodged by the Respondent, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was withdrawn from his account behind his back. Quite predictably, the Appellants denied all allegations of the complaint.
In view of such rival contentions, while the dispute could be conclusively evaluated by accessing the entire CCTV footage (from the time since the Respondent entered the ATM centre till the disputed transactions completed), it is indeed surprising that the most vital proof was not presented before the Ld. District Forum. In this regard, Appellants have come up with a bizarre explanation, i.e, since the CCTV footage was shown to the Respondent; there was no need for supplying the same to the Ld. District Forum.
Needless to say, when the matter reached a competent Court of law, it was obligatory on the part of both sides of the spectrum to present as many proof as possible to enable the District Forum discharge its function in a judicious manner.
Allegation of ATM fraud is not new in India. In fact, it seems that the menace is taking the shape of epidemic in this part of the world with every passing year. RBI reported 16,468 instances of financial cyber crime related to ATM debit card, credit card etc. in the year 2015-16. The number of frauds reported by the RBI was 13,083 in the year 2014-15 and 9,500 in the year 2013-14. Clearly, the endeavours of our Banks to make the system foolproof have come a cropper.
While the Appellants have miserably failed to prove that the cash was indeed withdrawn by the Respondent, I find no reason at all to quarrel with the findings of the Ld. District Forum.
Accordingly, I dismiss this Appeal. No costs. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER