State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chief Manager, State Bank Of India, ... vs Ashok Kumar Jaiswal on 8 December, 2008
1 JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI First Appeal no.143 of 2008 Against judgment dated 18.3.2008, passed by Palamu District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj, in Consumer Complaint no.52 of 2007. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Daltonganj and another - Appellants Vrs Ashok Kumar Jaiswal - Respondent For Appellants : Mr.Pravin Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent : M/s R.C.Jha and A.K.Pathak, Advocates. Before: - Justice Gurusharan Sharma, President Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy, Member And Mr. Satyendra Kumar Gupta, Member. J U D G M E N T
S.K.Gupta, Member: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.3.2008, passed by Palamu District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum), in Consumer Complaint no.52 of 2007, whereby the appellants were directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost within thirty days from the date of judgment, failing which interest @ 6% was payable from the date of judgment till payment.
2. Limitation for filing appeal, from the date of impugned judgment, expired on 17.4.2008, whereas it has been filed on 21.4.2008. A petition for condonation of delay has been filed under Rule 8(4) of the State Rules, wherein it is stated that free copy of the impugned judgment was supplied to the Counsel of the appellants on 24.3.2008. However, the appellants could know about the judgment dated 18.3.2008 only on 05.4.2008 when their Counsel sent the free copy of the judgment to them. Thereafter, some time was consumed in official procedure and ultimately, it could be filed on 21.4.2008. From the impugned judgment itself it is evident that the free true copy of the impugned judgment was ready on 24.3.2008. And, from that date (the date of receipt of free copy) the appeal has been filed within thirty days. Therefore, delay of four days in filing the appeal from the date of impugned judgment, is condoned.
3. The complainant-respondent had filed complaint before the District Forum for a direction to the opposite parties-appellants to correct the defect of the ATM machine and not to level allegation against him for overdraft from his Account. He also claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment.
4 According to the case of the respondent, he had his Account no.01190010543 with ATM facility, of SBI. On 29.11.2006, he received a letter from the appellant-Bank whereby it was informed that there had been overdraft of Rs.10,000/- in his said Account through ATM on 14.6.2006 and he was required to deposit the same. The respondent was surprised. He immediately informed the appellant-Bank vide his petition dated 13.12.2006 that he had neither withdrawn nor he deposited the amount in his Account on 14.6.2006. The Bank staff orally assured him that as the balance was correct, there was nothing to worry. The respondent expected a regret letter from the appellant-Bank, but when he did not receive any such letter, he again wrote on 24.7.2007. Then he received another letter dated 26.7.2007 with the same allegation. Therefore, he filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and claimed the reliefs as aforesaid.
5 The opposite parties-appellants appeared, filed written statement and contested the complaint. They contended that the complaint was filed by the complainant only with a view to put pressure upon the appellants not to demand Rs.10,000/-, the overdrawn amount by him. According to their case, the respondent had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- through his ATM card no.622018006100011847 from SBI ATM, Daltonganj bearing no.00601 for which transaction slip no.000000007824 was also given to the respondent through ATM. There was problem in the Software of the appellant-Bank from 06.6.2006 to 16.6.2006. As such, SBI Main Branch, Daltonganj had no link with Switch Centre, Belapur, Mumbai in between 06.6.2006 to 16.6.2006, therefore, withdrawal of amount was not carried out by Switch Centre, for the reason of which the withdrawn amount was again credited on the same date, i.e. on 14.6.2006, to the Account of the respondent. He had used his ATM card for withdrawal of amount which was apparent from J.P.Log dated 14.6.2006. From the J.P.Log it was established that through ATM Card of the respondent, Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn on 16.6.2006. It was true that the respondent had not deposited Rs.10,000/- on 14.6.2006 in his Account.
6. It was further said that as soon as the appellant-Bank detected the fault, the respondent was requested to deposit 10,000/- immediately, vide letter dated 29.11.2006. Further request was made to the respondent to deposit the overdrawn amount of Rs.10,000/- vide appellant-Banks letter dated 14.12.2006, which was in response to the respondents letter dated 13.12.2006.
7 Mr.Praveen Jaiswal, Counsel for the appellants, has argued that ATM machine cannot be operated and transaction is not possible unless the ATM card is inserted in the ATM machine and secret password, which is known only to the card holder, is mentioned by him. It has been contended that the respondent had used him ATM card for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 14.6.2006 which is evident from J.P.Log (Journal Print Log) dated 14.6.2006. But due to technical fault in the software, reverse entry was made of the same amount on the same date and this was the reason that the same amount was shown credited in the respondents Account. And, when the appellant-Bank, on detection of the overdrawal, requested the respondent to deposit the overdrawn amount, he declined to have withdrawn the amount on 14.6.2006.
8. Mr.Jaiswal, explaining the functions of ATM, has submitted that when a customer inserts his ATM card into the ATM machine for withdrawing money, the ATM senses the card and sends signal to ATM Switch Centre Belapur, Mumbai through VSAT/Satellite Media. ATM Switch verifies the Card holders details and amount with the bank database, if everything is OK, the customers Account is debited and a signal is sent back to the ATM for dispensing cash. The ATM then dispenses cash to the customer and details of transaction are printed in J.P.Log as well as the customer slip simultaneously. J.P.Log is a plain paper roll kept inside the ATM. The customer collects both cash and the advice slip of the transaction. A response code 000 indicating successful transaction appears in both J.P.Log and customer slip. And, when cash is dispensed successfully, a return signal is again sent to the switch centre and ATM Switch Centre treats this transaction as successful. If the signal is not received by the Switch Centre due to link failure/system problem, the Switch Centre reverses the transaction and the customers Account is credited with the same amount even after collecting the cash by the customer. It has been contended that in the present case thus the respondents Account was wrongly credited even after successful withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 14.6.2006.
9. The appellants have filed photostat copy of the computerised Statement of Account of their some account holders showing that amounts withdrawn through ATM on 14.6.2006 were credited in their Account on the same day by reverse entry. It has also been shown in these Statements of Accounts that their Accounts were debited subsequently on different dates. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that since there was no sufficient balance in the Bank Account of the respondent, the appellants could not debit his Account and had to issue a demand notice to the respondent for the same.
10. From the photostat copy of the document said to be J.P.Log dated 14.6.2006 in respect of the Account of the respondent filed by the appellants, it appears that in fact, Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn on 14.6.2006 at 11.56 hrs by ATM card no.6220180006100011847 which belonged to the respondent. Response code 000 also indicates successful transaction. Just above and below the said entry on that date, there are entries relating to other card numbers. And, from the detailed Account Statement of the respondent, it is obvious that two entries each of Rs.10,000/- have been made. By the second entry Rs.10,000/- has been credited in the Account of the respondent. Obviously first entry indicates withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-.
11. Therefore, from these documents it is conclusively proved that Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by the ATM Card of the respondent on 14.6.2006 from his Account. And, according to the case of the respondent himself he did not deposit any amount in his Account on 14.6.2006. Witness Shrawan Kumar, ATM Manager, SBI, Daltonganj (posted as such on 14.6.2006) fully supported the case of the appellants in his evidence on affidavit, photostat copy of which has been filed. There is nothing to contradict or challenge the technical aspect as pleaded on behalf of the appellants, shown by the documents and supported by the ATM Manager of the appellant-Bank in his evidence.
12. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, the complainant-respondent also filed his evidence on affidavit before the District Forum from which, his main contention appears to be that he had neither withdrawn nor deposited the amount in his Account on 14.6.2006 and that admittedly there was defect in the ATM machine on 14.6.2006. As regards defect, the appellant-Bank has clearly specified what actually it was, by the documents, evidence and submissions. Therefore, only saying that there was defect in the ATM machine on 14.6.2006, it does not go to prove that there was no withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from the Account of the respondent on that date. It is also important to note that the respondent nowhere in his evidence or brief of written arguments has stated that he did not use the ATM Card on 14.6.2006. Simply he has denied withdrawal of amount. But use of his ATM Card on 14.6.2006 for withdrawal of the amount, has been convincingly proved by the appellants by relevant documents.
13. The District Forum in the impugned judgment at para 11 has observed, vfHkys[k ls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd vkosnd us :i;k fudkyus ds fy, ,Vh,e ekhu esa viuk dkMZ Mkyk ijarq ,Vh,e ds lkVos;j esa QkYV jgus ds dkj.k :i;k ugha fudky ldkA We are really surprised at such finding of the District Forum as it is not the case of the complainant-respondent that he inserted the ATM Card into the slot of ATM machine for withdrawing money. From the documents or evidence also it is not suggested. Therefore, it is erroneous finding and obviously an error of record.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we come to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. They are entitled to recover the amount wrongly credited in the respondents Account from the respondent. As such they were justified in issuing demand notice to the respondent. We find substance in the contention of the appellants that just to put pressure on them not to ask the respondent to deposit Rs.10,000/- wrongly credited in his Account, he filed the frivolous complaint.
15. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the complaint. We further direct that the complainant-respondent shall pay Rs.2,000/- as cost to the appellant-Bank for filing frivolous complaint under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, within 30 days from the date of this judgment.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed with cost.
Ranchi, the 8th December, 2008.
Member Member President