VIDYAWANTI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 06.08.2012 passed by State Commission Haryana, Panchkula in First Appeal No. 318/2012.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Karnal alleging that she was having a saving bank account with respondent no.1 bank with ATM facility. On 20.03.2009, the complainant visited ATM installed in the premises of Dayal Singh College, Karnal Branch of State Bank of Patiala to withdraw a sum of Rs.8000/ -. Due to some technical fault, the complainant could not withdraw the said amount from the ATM machine. Thereafter, the complainant went to the ATM of State Bank of India installed at Nehru Place, Karnal and tried to withdraw Rs.8000/ - and at that time she found that sum of Rs.40,000/ - has been withdrawn by two transactions of Rs.20,000/ - each. On the same day, complainant wrote a letter to State Bank of Patiala seeking refund of Rs.40,000/ - wrongfully withdrawn from her account but the respondents / opposite parties failed to oblige. This led to filing of the consumer complaint.

(3.) THE opposite parties no. 1 and 2 resisted the complaint on the allegations that in the account of the complainant there were two transactions of ATM withdrawal of Rs.20,000/ - each on 20.03.2009 at 14:28:31 hours and 14:30:25 hours respectively. The opposite parties took the plea that operation under ATM process can be initiated by inserting the ATM card in the machine and, thereafter, by entering the private pin number of the account holder. Therefore, unless the card holder parts with the ATM card and disclose the pin number to third person, no transaction from the account of account holder can be made. It was pleaded that complaint filed by the petitioner was thoroughly investigated, the record was checked and it was ascertained after verification of record that sum of Rs.20,000/ -.each was withdrawn from the ATM without there being any foul play. The opposite parties no. 3 and 4 took the similar plea and they further raised a plea that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the said opposite parties.