State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of Patiala vs Hari Govind Singh on 8 April, 2015
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 08.04.2015 First Appeal No.445/2012 (Arising out of the order dated 28.03.2012 in Complaint Case No. DF.VII/100/2010/6252 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, L.S.C., Sheikh Sarai, Delhi-110017) STATE BANK OF PATIALA Mahipal Pur, Vasant Kunj Road New Delhi-110037 Through Branch Manager Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav ......Appellant VERSUS Sh. Hari Govind Singh R/o QTR. No. B1/1, BDDS (Res.) Complex Behind ISIC Hospital, Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070 .....Respondent CORAM N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial) S C Jain, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial) Judgment The appellant State Bank of Patiala has impugned the orders dt. 28.03.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi. Facts in brief of the appellant are that on 23.10.2009 he went to the ATM of State Bank of Patiala, Mahipalpur, Delhi. There were two ATM machines in one cabin. Complainant inserted his ATM card and entered his PIN number and withdrew a cash of Rs. 5,000/-. The available balance thereafter as per receipt was shown as Rs. 68,293.54/-. He made a second attempt to withdraw another sum of Rs. 5000/- from the same ATM machine No.1. The response given by the ATM was, 'invalid'. The complainant thereafter moved to the second machine which also did not display anything. He came back to machine No. 1 and withdrew the amount of Rs. 5000/-. The balance shown at that juncture was Rs. 58,293/-. The case of the complainant at this stage was that the ATM ought have shown the balance as Rs. 63,293/-. Upon this, he made a balance enquiry on the same machine. To his shock the balance enquiry reflected a balance of Rs. 38,293/- only. Thus the complainant was put to a loss of Rs. 25000/-. The defence raised by the OP is that the J.P.-Log-Book of both the ATM machines showed a withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from machine No. 1 and another withdrawal of Rs. 25000/- from machine No. 2. The details of the J.P.-Log-Book of both the machines as filed by the OP is reproduced below:-
ATM-1 Time of TXN TXN No. Response Code 09:08 am
2.
09:12 am Rs.10000/-
ATM-2 Time of TXN TXN No. Response Code 09:11 am
2. 09:16 am Rs.25000/-
Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint on the grounds that there was a malfunctioning of ATM machine. Ld. Trial Forum observed that the ATM machine in one attempt could dispense the amount of Rs. 15000/- only. Withdrawal of Rs. 25000/- itself was against the instructions and functioning of the computer. Arguments addressed by the counsel for the OP Sh. Ashok Kumar Behl and counsel for the complainant Sh. Col. S.R.Kalkal, were heard at length. Admittedly the ATM cabin had a CCTV Camera installed at the relevant time. OP could file the CCTV footage as the best evidence to establish that it was the complainant and complainant alone who was present in the cabin during the whole of the period of operation. No reasons were given for failure of the OP to place on record the CCTV footage. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records. FDR if any deposited by the appellant shall be released as per rules.
(N P Kaushik) Member (Judicial) (S C Jain)