DARBAN SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 27.9.2012 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli, thereby dismissing his consumer complaint No. 5 of 2011. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is running a shop and is having a bank account No. 11272267236 with the opposite party No. 1 -State Bank of India, Gopeshwar and he has also been issued an ATM card in regard to the said bank account. On 2.10.2010, the complainant went to Saharanpur for purchasing the goods for his shop, where the complainant required sum of Rs. 20,000 for purchasing the goods. On 3.10.2010, the complainant used his ATM card with the opposite party No. 2 -State Bank of India, Saharanpur for withdrawal of sum of Rs. 20,000, but no amount was disbursed by the ATM machine and no transaction slip was also issued. The complainant used his ATM card at another ATM of the bank for withdrawal of sum of Rs. 20,000, but there also, no cash was disbursed by the ATM machine and the transaction slip was also not issued. The complainant further used his ATM card at yet another ATM of the bank, but neither the cash was disbursed, nor the transaction slip was issued. It was alleged that on 3.10.2010, there was credit balance of Rs. 41,928.07 in the account of the complainant. The complainant was in need of money, therefore he used his ATM card at the ATM of Bank of Baroda, Saharanpur for withdrawal of Rs. 20,000, but no cash was disbursed and the transaction slip was issued, wherein the credit balance in the account of the complainant was shown as Rs. 16,928.07. The complainant purchased the goods after borrowing money. On coming back to Gopeshwar, the complainant made an oral complaint with the opposite party No. 1 on 6.10.2010, who assured for proper action in the matter. It was also alleged that as per the statement issued by the opposite party No. 1, sum of Rs. 20,000 was shown as withdrawn on 3.10.2010 from ATM No. 3948 of State Bank of India, Saharanpur, which was later on reversed and credited in the account of the complainant. On 3.10.2010, sum of Rs. 20,000 was shown as withdrawn from ATM No. 8789 of State Bank of India, Court Road, Saharanpur; Rs. 5,000 was shown as withdrawn from ATM No. 3949 of State Bank of India, Saharanpur and Rs. 20,000 was shown as withdrawn from ATM No. 8790 of State Bank of India, Saharanpur and this way, total sum of Rs. 45,000 was shown as having been debited. In the said statement, sum of Rs. 5,000 was shown as being credited on 6.10.2010, whereas the complainant did not deposit any amount in his account on 6.10.2010. The complainant lodged the complaint with the bank, but the needful was not done by the bank. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Chamoli.

(2.) THE opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on 3.10.2010 at 7:00:06 a.m., the complainant used his ATM card at the ATM of State Bank of India, Saharanpur for withdrawing Rs. 20,000 and due to technical fault of the machine, the amount was debited in the account of the complainant, but the cash was not disbursed and later on, the said amount was credited in the account of the complainant; that on 3.10.2010 at 07:01:26 a.m., the complainant withdrew sum of Rs. 20,000 by use of his ATM card and further tried to withdraw sum of Rs. 5,000 at 7:02:03 a.m., but the cash was not disbursed and on 6.10.2010, the said amount was credited in the account of the complainant; that on 3.10.2010 at 7:03:38 a.m., the complainant withdrew sum of Rs. 20,000 from his account and the cash was disbursed by the machine, but this time, the amount was not debited in the account of the complainant and the said amount was debited on 6.10.2010; that the complainant has withdrawn sum of Rs. 40,000 from his account and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.