State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, State Bank Of India vs Sri Sradhakar Sahoo on 5 September, 2022
I
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTI]S RIIDRESSAI, COMMISSION,
ODISHA. CIJ'fIACK
First Appcal No.4l 2i2012
(Frorn an order dated 2l .06.2012 passed by the District
consumer Disputes I{edrcssal Forum, Boudh in consumer
Cornplaint No. 35 12010)
1- Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Iloudh Branch,
AtlPO/Dist- Boudh.
2- In-Charge- A.T.M,
State Bank o1'India, Boudh Branch,
At/PO/Dist- Boudh.
Appcllants
- Versus-
Shri Sradhakar Sahoo,
S/o. Shri Birnbadhar Sahoo,
At- Butupalli,
PO/Dist- Boudh.
lLcspondcnt
Counsel for the Appellants- Sri P.V. Bala Krishna
Counsel for the Respondent - Nona
4
PRESENT :- - Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Member.
Sri Hemant Kumar MohantY, Member.
DATB OF HEARING-0s. 09. 2022
DATB OF ORDER. 05. 09. 2022
\L
2
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant is present.
Respondent is absent on repeated calls.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the S.B Account holder of S.B.I., Boudh. He had withdrawn Rs.1,000/- through ATM Card No.6220180203100033042 on 12.3.2010. On 13.3.2010 when he wanted to draw Rs.5,000/- through ArM, he could know from the Mini statement that an amount of Rs.15,000/-was illegally deducted from his account. The complainant never withdrawn the aforesaid amount through AIM or through bank. He reported the matter vide letter dated 15.3.2010 and 25.3.2010 to Opp.Party No.l, but the O.P No.l not taken any stepsfor L rederessal of grievances of complainant. Finding no other alternative, the complainant filed the complaint case before the learned District Forum Boudh for proper redressal of his grievance.
After receipt of notice, the Opp.Party No.1 filed written version denying his liability in the matter and further submitted that the complainant withdrawn on 12.3.2010 Rs. 1,000/- at the first instance and Rs.15,000 l- at the second instance through his ATM card, as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the complaint is liable to be disnrissed.
The learned forum below after hearing from both the parties passed the impugned order directing the Opposite parties to make payment of Rs.15,000/- with usual S.B interest to the complainant within one month from the date of the order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the O.Ps for realisation of awarded amount.
Challenging the impugned order of the learned forum below, the appellant has filed this appeal.
During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the learned forum below without assigning any cogent reason has passed the impugned order directing for payment of Rs.I5,000/- to the complainant which is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law, as such same is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that law is well settled that on acceptance of the terms and conditions with regard to user's of the debit card, for latches of debit card holder deficienicy in service can not be alleged against the Bank.
It is further submitted that complainant was given AIM card alongwith secret PIN to which the complainant is the only person to know the PIN . No money can be withdrawn from the ATM machine other than the complainant unless the ATM Card and secret PIN is handed over/given to a person by complainant. Counsel of appellant brought to our notice that although the bank has taken plea in written version that there has been withdrwal of money twice which can not be possible without AIM card and secret PIN and learned forum below without considering the same has wrongly came to a conclusion that the Opp.parties have committed deficiency in providing service observing that the Opp.Parties failed to prove that the complainant had withdrawn twice in the ATM counter on the very day \n 4 although it is the complainant to prove his case not the Opp.Parties.
The counsel for the Appellant cited a decision reported in 20ll STPL(CL) 566 NC in the case of State Bank of India Vrs. K.K.Bhalla wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that " we ure not convinced by this reosoning of either the District Forum or the State Commission particulurly, in view of the fact thal merely becuse the CCTV wus not working on lhose dutes and its footuge was thus not avoilable, does not mean that the money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using the ATM Card and the PIN number. In case the ATM card had been stolen or the PIN number hud become known to persons otlter thsn ATM card holder then the CCTV coverage could have helped in indentifying the persons who hud fruudulently used the card. In the instunt case it is not disputed that the ATM Card or PIN remuined in the self-custody/knowledge of the Respondent. In view of eluborate procedure evolved by the Petitioner/Bank to ensure that without the ATM Card and knowledtge of the PIN number, it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorised person from an ATM , we Jind it dfficult to accept the Respondenl's contention. No doubt there have been cases of fraudulent withdruwals as stated by the State Commission but the circumstances of those cases ruay nol be the same as in lhis case ancl in all probability, lhese fraudulent withdrawsls occured either becouse the ATM Card or the PIN numberfell in wrong hands."
The counsel for the appellant furlher cited the decision passed by 5 Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case of State Bank of India Vrs. Om Prakash Saini on l8'h January 2013 wherein it is held that :
"Learned District Forum allowed the complaint mainly on the ground that video footage were not furnished to the complainant by the opposite por$ and the leqrned State Commission also observed lhe same fact in the impugned order. In this cose, video footage hod no relevance at oll because this is not the case of complainant that he did not go to operate ATM machine of opposite party. Opposite party has also mentioned in ils written stutement that camera is fixed only on the face of the user und not on the keys of the ATM ond the delivery window. In such circumstances, non-supply of video footage hud no bearing on the claim of the complainant and on this deficiency cluim could nol have been allowed by the learned District Forum and upheld by the leurned State Commission. Consequently, petition filed by the petitioner/O.P is ullowed agoinst the responent land impugned order dt. 17.2.20212 passed by the learned State Commission in EA No.860 of 2011 is set aisde and compluint of the complainant is dismissed."
In the present case, the complainant is the custodian of AfM Card and secret PIN, without .{IM card and secret PIN money can not be withdrawn from AIM machine. It is found that money has been withdrawn twice from the AIM machine which can not be possible without the AIM card and its secret PIN and it is not the case of complainant that his card has \() 6 been stolen or misused. When the AIM card is not stolen or there is no allegation regarding misuse of AfM card by any other person, it is clear that the withdrawal has been made with the help of AIM card using the secret PIN number and without the help/knowledge of complainant money can not be withdrawn from the AfM machine.
We have heard learned counsel of appellant andtone through the I DFR, we found there is no allegation of complainant regarding stolen of ATM Cardldebit card during the relevnt period when money was withdrawn from the account of complainant from the AfM machine . Admittedly, money was withdrawn from the account of complainant on 12.3.2010 through ATM machine using the AlM/debit card and secret PIN.
Taking into consideration the ratio of judgments cited above by counsel of appellant and after perusl of DFR, appeal Memo, we found that the learned Forum below without considering the written version filed by Opp.partyl appellant has passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- to complainant which is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Hence, the impugned order is set aside.
Appeal is allowed.
Send back the DFR.
(H.K.Mohanty)
Member Member