State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India And Anr. vs Gurmeet Singh on 21 April, 2022
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.270 of 2021
Date of institution : 03.08.2021
Reserved on : 01.04.2022
Date of decision : 21.04.2022
1) Manager, State Bank of India, Near Senior Secondary School
Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar.
2) Manager, State Bank of India, College Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil
and District Rupnagar.
.....Appellants/Opposite parties
Versus
Gurmeet Singh S/o Guljar Singh R/o House No.10, HH Nangal
Township, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ropar.
Quorum:-
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Abhineet Taneja, Advocate For respondent : None KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 05.03.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar (in FA No. 270 of 2021 2 short, the "District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite parties (in short 'OPs'), under the Consumer Protection Act, was allowed as under:-
"8.In view of our above discussion, we feel, that there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, who are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of the CC to the tune of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. We also burden the OPs jointly and severally to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the CC".
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant, who worked as a pump operator, was having a saving bank account bearing No.30890122146 with OP No.1 and the salary of the complainant was credited in the said account. On 04.11.2019, the complainant operated the ATM machine situated at College Road, near Petrol Pump, Ropar to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,000/-. But said amount was not disbursed/released by the ATM machine. Thereafter, the complainant visited another ATM machine situated near City Police Station and withdrew Rs.10,000/-, but he received two messages on his mobile regarding debit of Rs.10,000/- and also debit of Rs.20,000/-, vide transaction No.9209 @ SBI ATM S1BC006342014. The complainant immediately approached the Branch Manager of OP No.2 and inquired about the alleged debit transaction of Rs.20000/-. The Branch Manager referred the complaint FA No. 270 of 2021 3 to Head Cashier, who informed that the amount of Rs.20,000/- had been credited in the account of CM Relief Fund, Orissa as donation. The complainant requested the OPs to refund the said amount but they refused to refund the same as it was not possible at their end. Hence, the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.20,000/- and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs, who appeared through counsel and filed their written reply separately. In reply to complaint OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint. The complainant had not come to court with clean hands and the complaint was not maintainable as complicated questions of law and facts were involved in the complaint. On merits OP No.1 stated that the complainant himself operated and transferred Rs.20,000/- on 04.11.2019 to Orissa CM relief fund through ATM at the college road branch of OP No.2 and as per the system, the transaction was found to be successful. The said fact could be verified from the CCTV footage and transaction slip. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In reply to complaint, OP No.2 raised the similar objections as stated by OP No.1 in its reply. Therefore, the same are not required FA No. 270 of 2021 4 to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. OP No.2 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions and the District Commission after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, accepted the complaint of the complainant, vide impugned order as above. Aggrieved with the same this appeal has been filed by the appellants/OPs.
7. We have heard learned the counsel for the appellants and respondent and have also gone through the record of the case.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the District Commission erred factually as well as legally in allowing the complaint on the ground that the respondent/complainant is an illiterate person and he had no intention of donating the amount. The District Commission in the impugned order observed on its own that being an illiterate person respondent/complainant was not aware about the fact as to how to operate the ATM machine. But neither there was any pleading in the complaint nor anything placed on record to show that he was an illiterate person and could not operate the ATM machine. The learned counsel further contended that the District Commission, in the absence of any evidence on record, gauged that the respondent/complainant had no intention to donate the amount to Orissa Relief Fund. Rather the respondent/complainant himself operated the ATM machine and donated the amount of Rs.20,000/- in the CM Relief Fund, Orissa. However, even if it is presumed that he had no intention of donating FA No. 270 of 2021 5 the amount and he inadvertently pressed the donation button, in that eventuality also, the appellants could not be fastened with any liability for the sole negligence of the respondent/complainant. Alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the learned counsel prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.
9. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant contended that District Commission has rightly accepted the complaint of the complainant and there is no illegality or perversity in the same. The respondent/complainant further contended that he operated the ATM machine situated at College Road, near Petrol Pump, Ropar to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,000/-. But said amount was not disbursed/released by the ATM machine. Thereafter, he visited another ATM machine situated near City Police Station and withdrew Rs.10,000/-, but he received two messages on his mobile regarding debit of Rs.10,000/- and also debit of Rs.20,000/-, vide transaction No.9209 @ SBI ATM S1BC006342014. He approached the OPs for redressal of his grievance, but they failed to redress the same. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, respondent/complainant prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the parties.
11. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is having a saving account with OP No.1 and it is also proved on record that Rs.20,000/- had been debited from the saving account of the respondent/complainant on 04.11.2019, Ex.C-2, FA No. 270 of 2021 6 through ATM machine of OP No.2, on account of donation to CM Relief Fund, Orissa. The respondent/complainant alleged that he used the ATM card for withdrawal of amount but the said amount had been wrongly credited in the account of said relief fund, by the OPs. On the other hand, the appellants/OPs pleaded that the respondent/complainant himself operated the ATM machine and donated the amount of Rs.20,000/- in the said relief fund. When the OPs had not refunded the said amount, the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission, which was allowed vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present appeal has been filed by appellants/OPs.
12. The grievance of the appellants/OPs is that the District Commission has wrongly allowed the complaint of the complainant without appreciating the facts of the case that the complainant himself operated the ATM machine and donated the said amount and OPs had no role to play in the said transaction. The question for adjudication before us is whether the appellants are liable to refund the amount debited on account of donation or not? To determine this controversy, we have perused the entire evidence and pleadings on record. A perusal of receipt, Ex.C-2, shows that an amount of Rs.20,000/- had been debited from the bank account of the respondent/complainant, vide transaction No.9209 dated 04.11.2019. The detail provided by the OPs, Ex. C-3, shows that the said amount was debited on account of donation to Orissa CM Relief Fund. The contention of the respondent/complainant is that he operated the ATM machine of the OPs for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- but the same was FA No. 270 of 2021 7 not disbursed/released by it and later on, he came to know that the said amount had been debited on account of donation to a relief fund. On the other hand, the contention of the appellants is that either the respondent/complainant had done the said transaction on his own free will or he pressed the donation button inadvertently, hence, they could not be liable for his act of negligence. From the evidence led by the parties, it is not clear whether he had any intention to donate the said amount or not, at the time of operating the ATM machine. However, it might be possible that the respondent/complainant inadvertently pressed the donation button. The onus to prove his contention lies on respondent/complainant, who used the ATM card of the appellants/OPs bank. But he failed to do so. The ATM transactions are customer oriented transactions and the customer is to be vigilant while transacting on the ATM machine. It was not the case of the respondent/complainant that he is an illiterate person or he was withdrawing the amount from the ATM machine for the first time. From the perusal of statement of account, annexure A-6, attached with the appeal, it proves that the respondent/complainant was well aware about the operation of ATM machine as he used to do the ATM transactions prior to the alleged transaction. Hence, we find force in the contention of appellants/OPs and are of the considered view that even if it is presumed that the respondent/complainant had no intention of donating the said amount and he inadvertently pressed the donation button, in that eventuality also the appellants/ OPs cannot be fastened with any liability for the act of the respondent/complainant. FA No. 270 of 2021 8
13. The another contention raised by appellants/OPs is that the District Commission erred factually as well as legally in observing that the appellants did not take any steps in helping the respondent/complainant for getting the amount back from CM Relief Fund. A perusal of record shows that the appellants/OPs on receiving the complaint, Ex. C-4, regarding the alleged transaction, did all possible efforts to assist the respondent/complainant, which is clearly proved by Ex. R-3 i.e. email send by the appellants/OPs for reversal of amount to State Bank of India, Forest Park Branch at Bhubaneswar, which maintains the Government account of Relief Fund. From the perusal of Ex. R-3, it also shows that said bank replied to the email sent by the appellants and stated that reversal of amount is not possible without State Government's authorization as the said relief fund account is a Government account. The relevant portion of the email dated 24.01.2020 sent by Chief Manager, SBI Forest Park Branch, Bhubaneswar to the appellants bank, Ex. R-3, is reproduced as under:-
"Dear Sir, With reference to the above, it is not possible to reversal of amount from this account without authorizes from Govt. since it is a GOVT ACCOUNT (Chief Minister Relief Fund Account)".
Accordingly, we find force in the contention raised by appellants/OPs and are of the opinion that the appellants/OPs did all possible efforts to assist the respondent/complainant to get his refund. As such, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/OPs with regard to alleged transaction done by the respondent/ complainant. Hence, appellants/OPs are not liable to refund the FA No. 270 of 2021 9 amount of Rs.20,000/-. The District Commission has wrongly held the appellants/OPs liable for alleged transaction. In view of this, the impugned order of the District Commission is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
14. Sequel to our above discussion, we allow the appeal of the appellants and the impugned order of the District Commission is hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent/complainant to approach the concerned authorities of the State Government Orissa to get the refund of Rs.20,000/-, which might be donated by him in the CM Relief Fund inadvertently, through the said ATM transaction.
15. The appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.16,910/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry by way of crossed cheque/DD to the appellants after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law
16. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and non-sitting of this Commission due to pandemic of Covid-19.
(RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) PRESIDING MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER April 21st, 2022.
(dv)