Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The respondent/OP had opposed the complaint by filing written version wherein it was stated that there are three makes of ATM machines working in Delhi i.e. NCR, HCL and Diebold. It was stated that first and second type of ATM machine can dispense maximum 40 currency notes at a time whereas the third machine i.e. Diebold can dispense maximum 50 currency notes at a time. It was alleged that as far as present case is concerned, Diebold ATM machine was used which can dispense maximum 50 current notes at a time. It was alleged that the concerned branch had loaded the machine with Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- denomination and maximum Rs.25,000/- could be withdrawn from the said ATM Machine. It was alleged that had the respondent/OP branch had replenished Rs.1000/- currency notes in the said machine, Rs.50,000/- could have dispensed from the said machine depending upon the limit allocated to a particular card. It was alleged that Rs.25,000/- had been dispensed from the said machine from other different accounts by using their respective ATM cards including the ATM card of the appellant/complainant.

It was admitted that the appellant/complainant was having saving bank account and was maintaining ATM Card, number of which has been given above with the respondent/complainant. It was alleged that the transaction in question was successful and Rs.25,00./- had been withdrawn by using ATM card of the appellant/complainant. It was alleged that two ATM machines were installed in the Seemapuri Branch. The ID of first   ATM is S10A004839001 and that of second ATM is S10G004839002. It was alleged that transaction in question took placed from 2nd ATM. It was alleged that the PIN number of the ATM of individual is a secret one and respondent/OP bank is not liable for misuse or unauthorized use of ATM card. It is for the card holder to protect its  safety.

It may be mentioned that alongwith the complaint, the appellant/complainant has annexed a copy of the mini statement, which shows that on the relevant date i.e. 03.08.2011, the appellant/complainant at 12.03 hours from first ATM Machine of Seemapuri Branch bearing ID No.S10A004839001 had used his ATM Card vide transaction ID No.5062 by using PIN number which was only known to the appellant/complainant had taken out the mini statement. Since this document is in possession of the appellant/complainant and has been annexed with the complaint it means that the first ATM machine was used by him at 12.03 hours. Appellant/complainant is disputing transaction No.8913, which was done on the same date at 12.04 hours from second ATM Machine bearing ID No.S10G004839002 installed in the same branch. It is admitted position that the card remained in the possession of the appellant/complainant. It is not the case of the appellant/complainant that he had lost or misplaced the same. PIN number of the ATM also remained in his exclusive knowledge. Further the transaction in question has been proved by the respondent/OP by filing documents i.e. copy of the ATM log, which clearly shows that the amount of Rs.25,000/- had been withdrawn from the ATM ID No.S10G004839002 (ATM machine in question) from branch No.4839 (Seemapuri Branch of respondent/OP) at 12.04.22 hours. The second document which is a certified copy of log of ATM ID No.S10G004839002 (1st machine) for July, Aug., Sep. 2011 for TXN of Rs.25,000/- which also proves that an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been withdrawn through ATM Card No.6220180483900101245 from Account No.00000030838135535 (saving bank account of the appellant/complainant) at 12.04.22 hours on 03.08.2011. The aforesaid documents prove the case of the respondent/OP. the findings given by Ld. District Forum are based on evidence on record.

The stand of the appellant/complainant that the slip was pasted on the machine that over Rs.10,000/- could not be withdrawn is no ground to accept the case of the appellant/complainant. According to the stand of respondent/OP, the same was of advisory in nature and was put for safety purpose so that amount remains available for other customers also. Further, the certified copy of slip of first ATM machine referred above also shows that Rs.25,000/- has been withdrawn by different customers by using their respective ATM from the aforescaid machine on different dates. In view of above discussion, it cannot be said that the machine cannot dispense Rs.25,000/- in one go. No evidence is also placed on record by appellant/complainant to substantiate the aforesaid contention.