The Complainants have filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Axis Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager at Balasore and O.P No.2 is the State Bank of India, Soro Branch, Soro, Balasore.  

                    2. The case of the Complainant No.2 in brief is that the Complainant No.2 having one Savings Bank Account No.221010100060525 with O.P No.1. But, on 30.08.2014, a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only was withdrawn from ATM of O.P No.2, which was detected by the Complainant No.2 on 01.09.2014 at 10.30 A.M. Thereby, the Complainant No.2 immediately reported to the Banking authorities through Telephone No.18001035577 for CCTV footage for detection of the criminal. Due to urgency need of money, the Complainant No.2 fell ill, thus the Complainant No.2 has approached before different forums of the O.Ps and government departments for redressal of his grievances, but failed due to inaction of such authorities. Ld. Banking Ombudsman of R.B.I has not denied about loss of money of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only of the Complainant No.2, but by-passed his liability and responsibility. Neither of the O.Ps has provided for CCTV footage of said withdrawal, rather Banking ombudsman has emphasized upon Ej log, switch report, no excess cash certificate and no machine break down etc. The Complainant No.2 has lodged complain before O.P No.1 in the matter also. Such type of activities by the O.Ps not only amount to deficiency in service, but also unfair trade practice. The Complainant No.2 has prayed for payment of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only with interest along with compensation and litigation cost.  

                    3. Written version filed by the O.P No.1 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, jurisdiction, Consumer as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that it is false to say that an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only was withdrawn on 30.08.2014 from the ATM counter of the State Bank of India, Soro without the knowledge of the Complainant nor the Complainant on 01.09.2014 at 10.30 A.M detected the same, nor reported the same matters to the Banking authorities on Telephone No.18001035577 to have CCTV footage for detection of the criminal. The Banking Ombudsman never admits the loss of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only of the Complainant No.2 nor by-passed his liability and responsibility nor escaped himself on the plea that it is not possible in the summary nature solution. The O.P No.1 has no illegal amalgamation to misappropriate the money of any depositor. But, after verification, it is found that the Complainant No.2 withdrew Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only (two transaction of Rs.10,000/- each) through ATM card bearing No.417917003446148 from the ATM of State Bank of India, Soro. The same amount has been withdrawn from the account of the Complainant No.2 having S.B Account No.22101010000605and the account has been transferred to Axis Bank, Soro on 15.09.2015. The Complainant No.2 only to defame the reputation of the Bank and for illegal gain after withdrawing the amount through ATM, withdrew cash of Rs.8,500/- (Rupees Eight thousand five hundred) only from the Bank to bring cause of action to file this case. The Complainant No.2 has lodged a complaint with the Axis Bank through phone banking/ system and this act of the Complainant No.2 is false as he has not produced any token or reference number allotted by the phone banking division. When in the complaint petition, the Complainant No.2 stated about the discovery of so called transaction on 01.09.2014, but in the F.I.R filed by him in the Soro Police Station, he stated that he found the suspected transaction on 25.09.2014. The Complainant No.2 also approached the Banking ombudsman, Bhubaneswar and the B.O, Bhubaneswar after taking into account of all evidence rejected the same. So, the case of the Complainants may be dismissed with cost.     

                    4. The O.P No.2 has filed his written version beyond the statutory period, for which the written version is not accepted. The O.P No.2 is also set ex-parte.

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainants that a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only has been withdrawn from the ATM of SBI, Soro (O.P No.2) on 30.08.2014 and it was detected by the Complainant No.2 on 01.09.2014, but he has not withdrawn the same. Immediately, he intimated the Bank authority over Toll free number for CCTV footage and subsequently, lodged written report before the O.Ps, but no fruitful purpose arose, for which the Complainant No.2 is in a view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, for which he has filed this case praying for return of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only with interest along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.1 that the Complainant No.2 himself has withdrawn the amount, for which there is no deficiency of service by the O.Ps and only to defame the reputation of the Bank, he has filed this case. Thereafter, the Complainant No.2 withdrew cash of Rs.8,500/- (Rupees Eight thousand five hundred) only from the Bank, which shows that the ATM card is with the Complainant No.2 and the same has been misused either by him or by anyone due to not keeping the ATM card and PIN safely. So, the Bank is not responsible for this. Regarding CCTV footage, it has been argued that it is the duty of O.P No.2 regarding supply of CCTV footage. But, in this case, the O.P No.2 is set ex-parte and the written version filed by O.P No.2 is not accepted as mentioned earlier. But, the Advocate for O.P No.2 was present at the time of hearing and filed written argument. In support of his argument, the Advocate for O.P No.2 has relied upon the authority reported in II (2011) CPJ-106 (NC) in the case of State Bank of India (Vrs.) K.K Bhalla, where in it has been held by the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi that when the ATM card and PIN in personal custody and when someone from O.P manipulated account, it is not deficiency in service and merely because CCTV not working does not mean that money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using ATM card and PIN and not possible to withdraw money from ATM by unauthorized persons. Furthermore, the authority reported in 2017(1) CPR-508 (NC) in the case of Vijender Mohan (Vrs.) Manager, Punjab National Bank, where in it has been held by the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi that when the amount was actually withdrawn vide transaction no., the transaction alleged has been completed.  

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, after hearing both the sides and on the basis of principles laid down by the above Authorities as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps in respect of withdrawal of such amount, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and he may take shelter in the appropriate court of law for the alleged incident and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-   

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.1 and on ex-parte against O.P No.2, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 9th day of May, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.