Judgment:
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Ld. Member.
Aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.2013 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas in C.C.Case No. 86 of 2011 dismissing the complaint, the Complainant/Appellant has preferred this Appeal.
The factual matrix of the case is that while on 27.5.2010 the Appellant swiped his ATM Card bearing No. 6220180536800029319 issued by State Bank of India, Garia Branch, along with a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 20003268456, at Garia More SBI ATM counter for withdrawing money of ` 600/-, as stated, the ATM did not deliver the required money, but delivered a statement showing a credit balance of ` 39,653.41. Having the Garia More ATM counter failed to deliver the money the Appellant thereafter made another attempt for withdrawal of ` 600/- at Fortabad SBI ATM counter nearby, which allowed the withdrawal of the said amount, but delivered a statement showing a credit balance of ` 53.41 only against real balance of `39,053.41, as claimed by the Appellant. The Appellant then lodged FIR on 9.6.2010 with Jadavpur P.S. and also informed the bank authority.
Upon consideration of all these facts the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint by its order dated 4.1.2013 having regard to the decision of the Honble National Commission reported in 2011 (2) CPR 26 (NC) “ [State Bank of India Vs. K.K.Bhalla]. Being dissatisfied with such order of the Ld. District Forum the Appellant has moved this Commission.
None appears on behalf of the Respondent/OP Bank. It is taken up for hearing ex parte but on merits. Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant put forward the same argument as put down in the Memo of Appeal filed and, emphasized that the Ld. District Forum misplaced its reliance on the decision reported in State Bank of India Vs. K.K.Bhalla (supra), which is factually different from the facts of the present case.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has not been able to establish with unimpeachable evidence that deficiency in service by the Bank resulted in his alleged monetary loss, nor could he bring to the notice of the Commission any proof to the effect that his ATM card and the PIN number, which was in his personal safe custody “ not in the custody of the Bank “ did not fall upon a wrong hand.
Further, perusal of the decision in State Bank of India Vs. K.K.Bhalla (supra), reveals that the facts of the above-referred case are identical with the facts of the case in hand, inasmuch, as both the cases revolve round the alleged failure of the ATM machine to deliver the money following the swiping of the ATM card. But it successfully debited the amount more than what was attempted to be withdrawn, and furthermore, in both the cases ATM card and PIN number was in the safe personal custody of the ATM card holders themselves.
In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the case in hand is fully covered by the aforesaid precedentx. In the circumstances, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement of the Ld. District Forum. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed ex parte without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement is affirmed.