CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.265/2017
MR. MAHMOOD ALAM
S/O SH. MOHAMMAD ALI RAJA
H.NO.398, BLOCK-O, SAURABH VIHAR,
BADARPUR, JAITPUR, NEW DELHI-110044
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- STATE BANK OF INDIA
OKHLA PHASE-I, 101-102, PLOT NO.15,
AGGARWAL PLAZA, NEW DELHI
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
- CANARA BANK
51, HARI NAGAR EXTENSION,
JAITPUR, BADARPUR,
NEW DELHI-110044
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:09.01.2019
O R D E R
H.C. Suri – Member
The complainant herein, Mr. Mahmood Alam has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the State Bank of India, the OP, alleging that the complainant is the bona fide customer of the OP Bank and has been maintaining the S.B.A/c no.32937848619 in its Okhla Branch, and that the complainant was issued a Debit cum ATM Card bearing no.5196200056175473 for day to day transactions in respect of his saving account. It is submitted by the complainant that he was in need of some money and as such visited the nearest ATM machine Installed by Canara Bank of Jaitpur to withdraw an amount of Rs.30,000/- from his account on 24.5.2017. When the complainant used said ATM card at the machine and gave the command for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-, the transaction was successful. Thereafter, the complainant used the said ATM second time for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. The cash was not dispensed by the ATM machine, rather a slip was generated mentioning in that “Transaction declined.” Thereafter, the complainant again tried to use the said ATM card at the machine third time for withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/-. Again the cash was not dispensed by the ATM machine, rather a slip was generated mentioning in that “Transaction declined” again. It is submitted that both abovesaid transactions were declined due to insufficient fund as mentioned in the said slip. It is submitted that thereafter the complainant had taken a print-out of the mini statement of his account and verified the transactions and found that Rs.10,000/- two times was withdrawn despite that abovesaid two transactions of Rs.10,000/- were declined. The complainant was shocked to see the said debit amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- on each occasion). The complainant immediately on 30.5.2017 complained to customer care of OP Bank vide complaint no.AT429230092164 and AT429230092084. It is further submitted that the complainant waited for more than 15 days and enquired the status of the complainant daily for redressal of his grievances but all went in vain. It is submitted that the complainant went to the Branch Manager on 19.6.2017, and made a complaint with the help of his educated neighbor vide email dated 19.6.2017 to the Bank. It is stated that the complainant also went to make a complaint to Canara Bank but the official of the said bank told him that SBI will take action. Then, another email dated 3.7.2017 was sent to the customer care and DGM of the OP Bank; and another complaint to the PMO on 10.7.2017 which was forwarded to the Chief General Manager, SBI, LHO, Parliament Street and the AGM Customer Care of the Bank but all the exercise resulted into futility. It is submitted that the complainant felt cheated and has suffered due to the negligent, dishonest and mala fide intentions of the OP in not paying the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has suffered great mental agony, hardships and sufferings and thus is entitled to recover the sum of Rs.20,000/- which he has suffered on account of the deficiency in service along with interest, compensation, legal expenses, etc.
The OP-1/SBI filed its WS and submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable either under equity or under the law of the land in view of the fact that all the three transactions which were made for Rs.10,000/- each by the complainant on 24.5.2017 were successfully done through the Debit card by the complainant himself. It is submitted that none of the transactions made by the complainant was declined by the ATM Machine. So, there is neither any deficiency nor any discrepancy on the part of the OP, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merits.
The OP-1 further submits that they have confirmed from the concerned branches as stated by the complainant about the said transactions and they have confirmed that the transactions were successful and were being made by the complainant or by someone on his behalf whom password was shared by the complainant. It is further submitted that the successful transactions on the said dates were also got confirmed from the EJ Report and same transactions are reflected in his account statement also. It is submitted that admittedly all the three transactions made through the Debit Card were made by the complainant himself, and that either of the transactions made by the complainant on that particular date and time were not declined by the ATM Machine as is reflected in the ATM record filed by the OP on the record. It is submitted that as per the records maintained by the bank during the course of regular banking business, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant which is supported with statement of account, passbook of the complainant and EJ entry record, no fraudulent transaction took place on the part of the OP Bank, and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is liable to be dismissed, because all the allegations made in the complaint against the OP are false and no substance.
The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the OP and denied all the contents of the WS, unless specifically admitted. The complainant reiterates that on 24.5.2017, the complainant needed Rs.30,000/- and had used his ATM card at the machine and gave the command for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-, the transaction was successful, and made similar attempts twice thereafter for withdrawing Rs.10,000/- but both times the cash was not dispensed by the ATM Machine, rather a slip was generated mentioning in that “Transaction declined” again, and that both above transactions were declined due to insufficient funds as mentioned in the said slip.
Parties have filed their respective evidence deposing on oath their respective versions of the story. The parties have also filed their written arguments, and addressed oral arguments as well.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
In fact on 05.09.2018 OP bank sought one week’s time to settle the matter and give credit of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter OP bank moved an application for review of the order dated 05.09.2018. There was no question of reviewing the order as this Forum has never directed OP bank to give a credit of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. Rather, time was sought for settling the matter. OP has placed on record the documents showing that the complainant has withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of Canara Bank at Hari Nagar at 4.20 PM and thereafter again a sum of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn on the same day. Thereafter the complainant came to Jaitpur Branch which was nearby and withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- on at 4.28 PM and thereafter again the card was used at 4.29 PM for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. That transaction was declined on account of insufficient funds. Again at 4.30 PM the card was used for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- which was also declined on account of insufficient funds.
It is proved from the documents placed on record that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.30,000/- and thereafter the transaction was declined twice as there was insufficient funds in the account of the complainant. OP has placed on record the statement of accounts clearly showing the withdrawal of Rs.30,000/- on 24.05.2017. OP has placed on record the documents showing the report of Canara Bank ATM, exhibit as RW1/2 dated 11.10.2018. The report of the bank clearly shows withdrawal of Rs.30,000/- by the complainant.
There was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 or OP-2. Even otherwise there was no privity of contract between OP-2 and the complainant. OP-2 is not a necessary party at all. Reference is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case of II (2016) CPJ 613 (NC) – Chenna Ram Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce & Anr.
The complaint has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
