ORAL
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No.8 of 2017
1- Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank,
Swaroop Nagar, District, Kanpur.
2- Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Branch
Kakadeo, District, Kanpur Nagar. ...Appellants.
Versus
Sunil Dutt Dixit s/o Shri Ganesh Dutt Dixit,
R/o House No.D-6, MIG-2, Surya Vihar,
Nawabganj, Kanpur Nagar. …Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.
Sri Sarad Kumar Shukla, Advocate for appellants.
None for the respondent.
Date 24.1.2023
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the ld. District Forum, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case no.720 of 2011, Sunil Dutt Dixit vs. Allahabad Bank & anr., whereby the appellants/defendants were directed to pay Rs.10,000.00 alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. within 30 days.
As per the case of the complainant, he maintained a current account no.10210227496 in State Bank of India, branch Lakhanpur, Kanpur. The complainant tried to withdraw Rs.40,000.00 through ATM but the amount could not be delivered by the ATM to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant tried to withdraw the amount from the ATM established at Lakhanpur and withdraw Rs.30,000.00. On perusal of the account, it appears that on 6.12.2010 at 11:59:28 Rs.10,000.00 was withdrawn from the ATM established at Kakadeo branch, Kanpur. The complainant made a complaint on 11.12.2010 to Allahabad Bank and SBI, Lakhanpur, Kanpur but never received any answer from these two bank and asked the copy of video recording but the bank failed to provide the video recording of the concerned ATM.
(2)
On appreciation of evidence, ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the defendants to pay Rs.10,000.00 to the complainant. This judgment has been challenged by the Allahabad Bank, branch Swaroop Nagar and Kakadeo on the following grounds:-
1- The respondent is not the consumer of appellant bank. He maintained his account with State Bank of India and also used ATM card bearing no.6220180801900000 issued by the SBI.
2- The complainant was operating the ATM of SBI branch, Lakhanpur. If there was any unauthorized withdrawl from the ATM then SBI, Lakhanpur branch is responsible for any deficiency in service.
We have heard ld. counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and order. None present for the respondent.
The complainant in his complaint itself, described that he has his account in SBI branch and used the ATM card issued by SBI. Therefore, he is not the consumer of appellants. The appellants bank are not responsible towards the respondent for any deficiency in service. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum is liable to be set aside against the appellants because only SBI is responsible for payment of Rs.10,000.00 to the complainant/respondent. The complainant gets the withdrawl facility on behalf of the SBI by using this facility the complainant cannot be considered the consumer of the appellants Allahabad Bank.
The State Bank of India was the necessary party in the complaint. Since the complainant is ATM holder of State Bank of India and not of the appellants Allahabad bank, therefore, complaint was invalid for not impleaded the necessary party in the complaint.
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum is hereby set aside. Since the complainant is not the consumer of the appellants bank hence, complaint is dismissed.
(3)
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafr, PA I
Court 2
