STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. OM PRAKASH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 860 of 2011 State Bank of India Vs. Om Prakash Saini by which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that he was holding saving bank account with the petitioner/OP. On 23.5.2010, complainant went to ATM of OP to withdraw Rs.5,000/-. Rupees 5,000/- could not be withdrawn due to defect in the ATM machine, but received a slip showing deduction of Rs.5,000/- from his account. Complainant immediately contacted opposite party on its toll free no. 1800112211. Opposite party assured that complainant would get the money back. Complainant also demanded video footage of the transaction at the relevant time but that was not supplied. Rupees 5,000/- was also not returned to him and in such circumstances alleging deficiency of service, filed complaint before the District Forum for refund of amount. Opposite party filed written submissions and submitted that ATM machine clearly shows withdrawal of sum of Rs.5,000/- on 23.5.2010 and complainant was given intimation of this fact along with copy of ATM record and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties accepted complaint and directed opposite party to refund Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. Opposite party/petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed by the learned State Commission against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that J.P. Roll contained various other transactions effected on 23.5.2010 and many persons had withdrawn money, but none other except the complainant, complained. Had there been any defect in the ATM machine, more complaints would have been received and in such circumstances, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal, hence, the revision petition be accepted and order of learned State Commission may be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, General Power of Attorney Holder of Respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and as the petitioner has not supplied video footage, petition is liable to be dismissed.