DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C NO. 44 OF 2013.
Present: Rabindranath Mishra - President
Miss Sidhira Laxmi Pattanaik -Member.
Sri Chakadola Mallick - Member.
Smt Snehalata Satapathy, aged 35 years
Wife of Sri Rabi Chandra Dash.
At: Phulbani Sahi PO: Contractorpada
PS: Phulbani Town, Dist: Kandhamal …………… Complainant
Versus.
1. Chief Manager, State bank of India,
Phulbani Branch .At Main Road, Phulbani
PO/PS: Phulbani Town Dist: Kandhamal.
2. General Manager (2)
State Bank of India, Bhubaneswaqr
Dist: Khurda ……………. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Self.
For the Opp. Parties: Sri S, K Mohapatra Advocate and his
Associates
Date of Order: 26-11-2014
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that she is a Saving Bank account holder of S.B.I Main Branch ,Phulbani bearing Account No. 11740571786 and availing A.T.M facility . She operated her A.T.M Card at Phulbani Medical Chhak A.T.M counter on 14-12-2012 at 11A.M and withdrawn an amount of Rs. 500/- only. Prior to said withdrawal she tried twice to draw from the A.T.M machine but the reply was “SORRY UNABLE TO PROCESS”. So, she used the other machine inside
-2-
the same A.T.M Center but an amount of Rs. 36,000/- has been debited in two occasions amounting Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 16,000/-,respectively as per advice slip . She reported the matter before the Opposite Party and before the local police. She also reported the matter before the banking Ombudsman. The office of the Banking Ombudsman advised her to approach any other grievance redressal authority. As the Complainant was suffering both mentally and financially due to negligence of the Opposite parties, she has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties for deficiency in service on their part. She prayed for a direction to the O.Ps to pay Rs. 36, 000/- with interest since 14-12-2013 and claim compensation of Rs. 30,000/- along with cost of litigation for her financial loss and mental agony.
The case of the Opposite parties as per their version is that it is false to say that prior to the transaction of the Complainant she tried twice to draw from another A.T.M Mechine but it is true that an amount of Rs. 36,000/- has been withdrawn from the account of the Complainant from the medical Chhak A.T.M Center through 2 transactions. All the transactions made on 14-12-2012 were successfully operated by the Complainant as she was available inside the A.T.M Room On 14-12-2012. The Complainant has withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- vide Txn ID NO- 1092 from ATM ID No. S1B000154004, Rs. 16,000/- vide Txn ID No. 1094 and Rs. 500/- Vide Txn No. 1097 from the same A.T.M number. The Bank verified the transactions from JP/EJ log and found the transactions were successful. The bank also verified the “VIDEO FOOTAGE” in which the Complainant was present inside the A.T.M Room. It is well settled that money could not be withdrawn without using the A.T.M card and secret code PIN number. So, the burden lies with the complainant under what circumstances the card left from her custody as well as the secret code made exposure to a stranger other than herself. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P, for which the complaint is liable to be rejected with costs.
During the period of hearing both the parties have not filed any affidavit in support of their case. However we have gone through the Complaint petition, version of the Opposite parties and copies of documents filed by both the parties.
