State Bank of India, Mandi, Through Its Chief Manager Vs. Sansar Chand Kapoor and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1148049
CourtHimachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided OnMar-20-2014
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 340 of 2013
Judge(RETD.) SURJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. PREM CHAUHAN, MEMBER
AppellantState Bank of India, Mandi, Through Its Chief Manager
RespondentSansar Chand Kapoor and Another
Excerpt:
justice (retd.) surjit singh, president (oral) 1. appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2013, of learned district consumer disputes redressal forum, mandi, whereby a complaint, under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986, filed against it (the appellant) and respondent no.2, punjab national bank by respondent no.1, has been allowed and a direction issued to the appellant to credit an amount of rs.10,000/-, in the account of the respondent/ complainant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, to the date of making of credit entry and also to pay rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment and another sum of rs.3,000/-, on account of costs of the complaint. 2. admitted facts are that respondent/ complainant-sansar chand kapoor, had a savings bank account with the appellant and he was also having atm card facility, linked with the said savings bank account. on 10.11.2011, respondent/ complainant-sansar chand kapoor, came to know that a sum of rs.10,000/- had been debited in his savings bank account and when he made enquiries from the functionaries of the appellant, he was told that he had withdrawn a sum of rs.10,000/- on 10.11.2011 at 11.24 a.m., by using atm card, at the atm machine of respondent no.2. 3. according to respondent/complainant, he had not made use of atm card on the aforesaid day, i.e. 10.11.2011, nor had he given his atm card to anybody else for withdrawing money on that day. he alleged that he demanded from the appellant, video clipping of the relevant time, to find out as to who withdrew the money, about which debit entry was made in his savings bank account, but the clipping was not made available to him by the appellant. it was also alleged that respondent/complainant was informed by the appellant, through a letter dated 22.12.2011 that respondent no.2, from whose atm machine, money had been withdrawn, was approached to provide video clipping, but till that date (viz. the date of letter) no information had been received from respondent no.2. respondent/ complainant further alleged that he sought information from respondent no.2, under the right to information act and he was informed that a cd, in respect of the transaction, in question, had been handed over to the functionaries of the appellant on 20.12.2011. he then, filed a complaint, under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986, seeking issuance of a direction to the appellant, as also respondent no.2, to pay a sum of rs.10,000/-, equivalent to the debit entry made in his savings bank account and also to pay damages and litigation expenses. 4. appellant filed reply, in which, it was admitted that respondent/complainant had a savings bank account with it and atm facility was also available, in respect of that account. also, it was admitted that respondent/complainant had alleged that he had not withdrawn any money on 10.11.2011 and that the debit entry made in the account was wrong. demand by the respondent/complainant for video clipping was also not denied. however, it was stated that video clipping, which was received from respondent no.2 on 20.12.2011, was in respect of camera fitted in the cabin and not in respect of in-built camera of the atm machine and that the respondent/complainant was called to see the film of the cd received from respondent no.2. it was stated that respondent/complainant came to the bank of the appellant with his son-in-law and saw the picture, which was blurred. also, it was stated that there was mismatch of timings of cctv and internal timings of atm machine and because of which it could not be ascertained, who operated the atm machine, in respect of the aforesaid transaction. 5. respondent no.2, who was impleaded as opposite party no.2 in the complaint, pleaded that it had supplied a cd, based on video clipping, to the appellant on 20th december, 2011. it was also stated that as per log, copy annexure c-3, the transaction had been completed. 6. learned district forum, vide impugned order has observed that the conduct of functionaries of the appellant, in not supplying video footage, despite having received a cd from respondent no.2, renders the appellant, liable to pay an amount of rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant and with this observation, complaint has been allowed only against the present appellant. 7. we have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. it is not in dispute that respondent/ complainant on coming to know that debit entry had appeared in his savings bank account with the appellant-bank, approached the appellant-bank on 12.11.2011 for supply of video footage, in respect of alleged transaction regarding withdrawal of money by use of atm card. it stands established from annexure c-2, copy of information received by the respondent/complainant from respondent no.2, under the right to information act that one cd, pertaining to the transaction, in question, was handed over to the appellant on 20th december, 2011. despite having received the cd on 20th december, 2011, appellant addressed a letter on 22nd december, 2011, copy annexure c-1, to the respondent/complainant that it had taken up the matter with respondent no.2, on respondents/complainants asking and demanded video clipping of specific transaction for his (complainants) satisfaction, but they had conveyed telephonically that there was some technical problem and, hence, it may take some more time to procure video clipping of the transaction. 9. the contents of the aforesaid referred to letter, annexure c-1, written by appellant to the respondent/complainant, are false, to the knowledge of the appellant, because as already indicated, a cd in respect of video footage of transaction had been made available to the appellant by respondent no.2, on 20th december, 2011. it is anybodys guess why did the appellant hide the fact of receipt of cd from respondent no.2, while addressing letter, annexure c-1, to the respondent/complainant. 10. the above stated position apart, it is stated by the appellant in paras-5 and 6 of their reply that there is mismatching of time in the cd, made available by the bank and the time indicated by the atm machine. the fact that mismatching of timing in the cd, which is based on the footage from camera footage in the cabin and the timing indicated by atm machine itself is enough to doubt the version of the appellant and the other bank that transaction had been completed. 11. in view of the above stated position, we see no reason to interfere with the finding and order of learned district forum. consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 12. a copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per rules.
Judgment:

Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral)

1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it (the appellant) and respondent No.2, Punjab National Bank by respondent No.1, has been allowed and a direction issued to the appellant to credit an amount of Rs.10,000/-, in the account of the respondent/ complainant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, to the date of making of credit entry and also to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment and another sum of Rs.3,000/-, on account of costs of the complaint.

2. Admitted facts are that respondent/ complainant-Sansar Chand Kapoor, had a savings bank account with the appellant and he was also having ATM card facility, linked with the said savings bank account. On 10.11.2011, respondent/ complainant-Sansar Chand Kapoor, came to know that a sum of Rs.10,000/- had been debited in his savings bank account and when he made enquiries from the functionaries of the appellant, he was told that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 10.11.2011 at 11.24 a.m., by using ATM card, at the ATM machine of respondent No.2.

3. According to respondent/complainant, he had not made use of ATM card on the aforesaid day, i.e. 10.11.2011, nor had he given his ATM card to anybody else for withdrawing money on that day. He alleged that he demanded from the appellant, video clipping of the relevant time, to find out as to who withdrew the money, about which debit entry was made in his savings bank account, but the clipping was not made available to him by the appellant. It was also alleged that respondent/complainant was informed by the appellant, through a letter dated 22.12.2011 that respondent No.2, from whose ATM machine, money had been withdrawn, was approached to provide video clipping, but till that date (viz. the date of letter) no information had been received from respondent No.2. Respondent/ complainant further alleged that he sought information from respondent No.2, under the Right to Information Act and he was informed that a CD, in respect of the transaction, in question, had been handed over to the functionaries of the appellant on 20.12.2011. He then, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking issuance of a direction to the appellant, as also respondent No.2, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, equivalent to the debit entry made in his savings bank account and also to pay damages and litigation expenses.

4. Appellant filed reply, in which, it was admitted that respondent/complainant had a savings bank account with it and ATM facility was also available, in respect of that account. Also, it was admitted that respondent/complainant had alleged that he had not withdrawn any money on 10.11.2011 and that the debit entry made in the account was wrong. Demand by the respondent/complainant for video clipping was also not denied. However, it was stated that video clipping, which was received from respondent No.2 on 20.12.2011, was in respect of camera fitted in the cabin and not in respect of in-built camera of the ATM machine and that the respondent/complainant was called to see the film of the CD received from respondent No.2. It was stated that respondent/complainant came to the bank of the appellant with his son-in-law and saw the picture, which was blurred. Also, it was stated that there was mismatch of timings of CCTV and internal timings of ATM machine and because of which it could not be ascertained, who operated the ATM machine, in respect of the aforesaid transaction.

5. Respondent No.2, who was impleaded as opposite party No.2 in the complaint, pleaded that it had supplied a CD, based on video clipping, to the appellant on 20th December, 2011. It was also stated that as per log, copy Annexure C-3, the transaction had been completed.

6. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order has observed that the conduct of functionaries of the appellant, in not supplying video footage, despite having received a CD from respondent No.2, renders the appellant, liable to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant and with this observation, complaint has been allowed only against the present appellant.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

8. It is not in dispute that respondent/ complainant on coming to know that debit entry had appeared in his savings bank account with the appellant-Bank, approached the appellant-Bank on 12.11.2011 for supply of video footage, in respect of alleged transaction regarding withdrawal of money by use of ATM card. It stands established from Annexure C-2, copy of information received by the respondent/complainant from respondent No.2, under the Right to Information Act that one CD, pertaining to the transaction, in question, was handed over to the appellant on 20th December, 2011. Despite having received the CD on 20th December, 2011, appellant addressed a letter on 22nd December, 2011, copy Annexure C-1, to the respondent/complainant that it had taken up the matter with respondent No.2, on respondents/complainants asking and demanded video clipping of specific transaction for his (complainants) satisfaction, but they had conveyed telephonically that there was some technical problem and, hence, it may take some more time to procure video clipping of the transaction.

9. The contents of the aforesaid referred to letter, Annexure C-1, written by appellant to the respondent/complainant, are false, to the knowledge of the appellant, because as already indicated, a CD in respect of video footage of transaction had been made available to the appellant by respondent No.2, on 20th December, 2011. It is anybodys guess why did the appellant hide the fact of receipt of CD from respondent No.2, while addressing letter, Annexure C-1, to the respondent/complainant.

10. The above stated position apart, it is stated by the appellant in paras-5 and 6 of their reply that there is mismatching of time in the CD, made available by the bank and the time indicated by the ATM machine. The fact that mismatching of timing in the CD, which is based on the footage from camera footage in the cabin and the timing indicated by ATM machine itself is enough to doubt the version of the appellant and the other bank that transaction had been completed.

11. In view of the above stated position, we see no reason to interfere with the finding and order of learned District Forum. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

12. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.