State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, ... vs Raunaque Hussain on 7 December, 2012
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND
FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/170/2012
(Arising out
of order dated 22.03.2012 of Consumer Case No. 177/2010 of D.C.D.R.F., South 24
Pgs.)
Date of Filing : 20.04.2012 Date of Final Order :
07.12.2012
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Metiabruz Branch
P.S. Metiabruz,
Kolkata 700024
District 24 Parganas (s).
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
Raunaque Hussain
son of Late Amir Hamza
1-217, Paharpur Road
P.O. & P.S. Garden Reach
Kolkata 700024.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas
Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Sri
S. Coari.
MEMBER : Smt.
Mridula Roy.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Smt. Rita Mondal,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. :
Mr. Azhar Ali Shadan,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgement rendered by D.C.D.R.F., 24 Pgs., South in Case No. 177 of 2010 dated 22.03.2012 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the case with cost of Rs.2,000/- directing the O.P. to refund Rs.10,000/- with interest @9% per annum from 17.03.2010 till realization thereof and also to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation.
Being aggrieved by this order the O.P. Bank preferred the instant appeal.
The case of the Complainant (Respondent herein) in brief is that on 17.03.2010 he made an attempt to withdraw Rs.10,000/- only from his SB A/C through ICICI ATM at Metiaburuz Branch but his SBI ATM Card was refused and consequently, the transaction was declined. Subsequently, the Complainant made another attempt through SBI ATM to withdraw Rs.10,000/- but did not succeed as it showed that the available balance was lower than the required amount. Later, the Complainant found that Rs.10,000/- was missing from his Savings Account though successful transaction had not been occurred. The Complainant made several contact to the SBI for rectification of the wrong debit it showed but all were in vain. Hence, he filed the complaint case.
The O.P. Bank contested the case denying all material allegations stating inter alia that the Complainant withdrew Rs.10,000/- from his Savings Bank Account by utilizing by his ATM Card and, therefore, question of wrong debit did not arise at all.
Though the O.P. filed Written Version, the case was heard ex parte as the O.P. did not take part in argument.
The moot point was whether the transaction in question took place or not?
In this regard Ld. Forum below held deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Bank on the ground that there was no reason to disbelieve the Complainant since his averment was unchallenged, photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant revealed that successful transaction took place, another document showed transaction declined and a letter where he stated his grievance to the Branch Manager of SBI, Metiaburuz Branch. The Forum below further observed that the O.P. had not provided the Video Cassette in respect of pushing the ATM Card which was allegedly shown as successful transaction.
To determine the point whether the Ld. Forum below was justified enough in holding deficiency on the part of the O.P. we rely upon the case reported in 2011 (2) CPR 26 (NC) State Bank of India vs. K. K. Bhalla wherein the Honble National Commission held merely because the CCTV was not working on those dates and its footage was thus not available, does not mean that the money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using the ATM Card and the PIN No. In the instant case it was not disputed that the ATM Card or PIN remained in the self custody/knowledge of the Respondent. In view of the discussion made hereinabove we are of opinion that the Appellant Bank has no deficiency in service on its part.
In the result, the appeal is allowed on contest without cost. The impugned judgement is set aside. The petition of complaint is dismissed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT