The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Govt. Secretariat Branch, Bhubaneswar, O.P No.2 is the Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar. 

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a Consumer under O.P No.1 and inter-linked with the O.P No.2 and 3. The Complainant due to non-availability of cash in UCO Bank ATM, used the SBI ATM counter at Motiganj Bazar on 12.08.2014 to withdraw an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only at 8.07 P.M, but no cash was dispensed and the transaction slip came out deducting the amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only from the balance stating therein that successful transaction was made and the security guard of the ATM advised the Complainant to call on the branch phone number 06742390553 as printed on the ATM card and the Complainant called the number and got reply that his cash will be credited within 7 days of debit. Then the Complainant on dtd.25.08.2014 lodged a complaint in a printed form before the O.P No.1 as the amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only was not credited to his S.B Account though 7 days time is over and also asked to produce the print out of C.C footage of aforesaid transaction. The O.P No.1 handed over one report dtd.05.09.2014 of charge back representment by rejecting the complaint and advised the Complainant to go for arbitration. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged another complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, C/o. Reserve Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, who has settled/ disposed the claims. The Reserve Bank of India, Bhubaneswar sent a letter on dtd.13.03.2015 to the Complainant by Post, which was received on 16.03.2015 along with various documents like (a) E.J Log of the transaction No.9901, (b) No Excess cash certificate dtd.13.08.2014, (c) We confirm that there was no report of machine breakdown on that day, (d) Copy of the ATM log retrieved from ATM switch centre and (e) Copy of the cash balancing sheet submitted by the vendor for 12.08.2014 and 13.08.2014. The R.B.I denied the complaint basing on the letters of O.P No.2 and advised to go for any other grievance redressal Forum in accordance with Law. The Complainant has submitted that in the copy of the cash balancing sheet as submitted by the vendor for 12.08.2014, there are over writing in six places made without any initial, which creates doubt and the balancing sheet for 13.08.2014 is clear, no correction/ over writing was made. The Complainant again requested the O.P No.1 by writing on dtd.21.03.2015 to get back/ credit of cash of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only to his S.B Account or to produce the print out of C.C footage in support of the successful transaction made on 12.08.2014 at 8.07 P.M. Then the O.P No.1 in reply to the letter dtd.21.03.2015, has intimated the Complainant on 26.03.2015 that as per letter of O.P No.2, successful transaction was made and the CCTV footage copy yet not been received by them and the matter was also intimated to the Ombudsman for enquiry by them. The O.P No.2 has well known about the transaction made on dtd.12.08.2014, which was not successful from CCTV footage, for which he has not producing the CCTV footage and also the vendor of the O.P No.2 has misappropriated the excess cash available in the tray and adjusted the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only by over writing the balancing sheet dtd.12.08.2014. The Complainant has prayed for directing the O.P No.2 to intimate the O.P No.1 to credit the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only to the S.B Account of the Complainant along with interest from the date of debit to till date 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, limitation as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that the Complainant is a S.B A/c holder of this Bank, for which a debit card has also been issued to him. The Complainant has made the transaction with O.P No.2 ATM through his debit card, wherein it was reported by the Complainant that he has not received the transaction amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only from the same ATM, but the said amount has been debited from his account along with a successful transaction slip issued by the O.P No.2 ATM. As the above transaction made by the Complainant with O.P No.2 ATM was a successful one as per system generated report in this regard, the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only has been debited from this O.P and also the said amount has been debited from the account of the Complainant. However, on receipt of the complaint from the Complainant regarding the debit of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only from his account as alleged, this O.P-Bank has enquired about the same and came to know that on dtd.12.08.2014, the Complainant made a successful transaction through the ATM of O.P No.2 and thereby, the said amount has been debited from his account and this fact was also duly intimated to the Complainant in response to his complaint. It is further submitted that although after receipt of complaint, this O.P has requested the O.P No.2 to supply the CCTV footage copy, but the same was not supplied by the O.P No.2. Hence, this O.P has no responsibility in that regard as alleged by the Complainant. In spite of that, the Complainant had lodged a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar alleging the deficiency of service against the O.Ps, which has been disposed of after hearing from all the Parties, wherein being the competent authority the Banking Ombudsman has not observed any fault/ deficiency of service on the part of this O.P as alleged by the Complainant. Furthermore, it has also been ascertained that there is neither any irregularities nor any deficiency of service in the matter on the part of this O.P as alleged by the Complainant and being a prudent Banker, this O.P-Bank has discharged his duties properly and efficiently at every point of time and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed and has deliberately filed this case against this O.P-Bank with an intention only to harass the O.P-Bank. Hence, the case of the Complainant is liable to be rejected with cost. Neither the O.P No.1 nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.Ps No.2 & 3 through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, Consumer as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps No.2 and 3 have further submitted that the story of so called unsuccessful transaction regarding cash delivery of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only on 12.08.2014 at 8.07 P.M from SBI ATM counter at Motiganj Bazar by the Complainant is wrong, incorrect and misleading as the transaction was successful as per transaction slip, EJ log book and copy of the ATM log retrieved from ATM switch centre. The Complainant contacted the O.P No.1 through phone is beyond the knowledge of O.P No.2 and thereafter, subsequent development with O.P No.1 is also beyond the knowledge of the O.P No.2. The allegation regarding providing of CCTV footage dtd.12.08.2014 was never asked by the Complainant for supply by O.P No.2. In this connection, the O.P No.2 submitted that it is beyond reasonable control of the Bank to provide the copy of CCTV footage beyond three months of the date of occurrence. Moreover, the Complainant has not demanded for supply of the CCTV footage of the relevant date and time within three months of the date of occurrence. The story of misappropriation of the amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only by the vendor of the O.P No.2 as per grounds of the Complainant is also wrong, untrue and misleading. Moreover, the O.P No.1-UCO Bank and O.Ps No.2 & 3-State Bank of India are separate entities with different management as corporate bodies. The O.Ps No.2 & 3 have no power or authority to direct the O.P No.1 to credit Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only in the S.B A/c of the Complainant against successful transactions. The whole process of ATM transaction is a technical matter made on electronic process system as per copy of documents available with the O.P No.2 and the Complainant like (a) E.J Log (Electronic Journal print log) book of the transaction No.9901, (b) No Excess cash certificate on 13.08.2014, (c) No machine breakdown report on that day, (d) Copy of ATM log retrieved from ATM switch centre, which are vital for just decision of this case. So far the cash balancing sheet is concerned, the same is an internal document of the Bank and it has no legitimacy or connection with this impugned transaction and the said document is no way connected with the single and solitary transactions of the Complainant. Even after receiving of cash of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only, the Complainant has falsely foisted this case against the O.Ps No.2 & 3 for his unlawful benefit and illegal gain. Hence, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                    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) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.Ps as per Law ?

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

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after operating the concerned ATM in the ATM counter though a transaction receipt vide Annexure-I was generated regarding withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only from Motiganj Bazar ATM, no cash was dispensed, for which on several occasions he had contacted the authorities and lastly on 21.03.2015, he had requested the O.P No.1 vide Annexure-XIII to get back/ credit the cash amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only to his S.B Account or to produce the print out of CCTV footage. But, on going through the Annexure-XIII, no such request has been reflected therein. So, the Advocate for Complainant has tried to misguide the Forum. However, from the documents available in the case record, it is found that the Complainant has approached the Ombudsman, who has also rejected the claim of the Complainant vide Annexure-V on the ground that the transaction was successful and no excess cash was found in the ATM box on 12.08.2014 and 13.08.2014 and it was also confirmed that there was no report of machine breakdown on that day by the concerned Bank. This fact has been disclosed vide Annexure-IX. The Complainant has also not filed his Bank passbook with reference to the account to verify the actual position regarding debit of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only and subsequent credit to the same account if any for the reason best known to the Complainant. The Advocate for the Complainant has also relied upon Annexure-XI, but he has failed to satisfy the Forum how this document is relevant to this case to conclude in the matter that no amount has been dispensed from the concerned ATM. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of O.Ps No.2 & 3 that the claim of false transaction at ATM must be proved by proper documentary evidence as decided by the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi in the authority reported in 2017 (1) CPR 508 (NC) in the case of Vijender Mohan (Vrs.) Manager, Punjab National Bank. Similarly, it has been further argued on behalf of O.Ps No.2 & 3 that the complaint can be dismissed for misjoinder of Parties and causes of action as decided by the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi in the authority reported in 2017 (2) CPR 28 (NC) in the case of Abhishek Roy and ors. (Vrs.) M/s. Unitech Limited. In the instant case, in the complaint petition, the cause of action has not been specifically mentioned. Further, it has been argued that the O.P No.2 is the Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar. But, the operating ATM is under SBI, Motiganj Bazar. The Complainant is also silent how he has made Party to the O.P No.2. So, on the ground of misjoinder of Parties and cause of action, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed also. Neither the O.P No.1 nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case though their presence is necessary for decision of the case and also to assist the Forum to come in a proper finding. So, O.P No.1-Bank should take suitable action against defaulting one if deemed fit.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principles laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, I am in the opinion that the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for 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.Ps No.1 to 3, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 30th day of October, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.