SATYANARAYAN PANDEY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Satyanarayan Pandey, against the order dated 23.9.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, (in short The State Commission') passed in First Appeal No. 14/803.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is resident of Bhilai having business of textile/cloth. His son was studying at Mumbai. The complainant had gone to Mumbai and he tried to take out Rs. 10,000 from the ATM of opposite party No. 2/Axis bank at 10.50 a.m. using his ATM card of the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1. However, no money came out of the machine and the complainant again tried second time to withdraw the money, but this time also he was not successful. The complainant then came back to Bhilai on 24.9.2012. On 16.10.2012, he got his passbook updated from the State Bank of India and he came to know that his account has been debited for Rs. 20,000 on 22.9.2012. The complainant then made complaint to concerned Branch a Manager of the State Bank of India and was promised that inquiry will be made. He made complaint in writing on 18.12.2012 to the Branch Manager of Axis Bank. The complainant also filed complaint on 19.1.2013 with the Banking Ombudsman. However, the banking Ombudsman rejected the complaint on 15.3.2013. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint No. CC/13/87 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg, (in short 'the District Forum'), which was resisted by the opposite party No. 1 on the ground that the money was withdrawn using ATM by the complainant on 22.9.2012 at 10.50 a.m. and 10.51 a.m. at Mumbai and transactions are recorded in the electronic general file. ATMs are very sophisticated machines being used all over the world and such mistakes are not possible. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 25.11.2014 and ordered that the non applicant shall pay Rs. 20,000 to the complainant along with the a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for harassment and mental agony.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2014 of the District Forum, the opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide its order 23.9.2015 and the complaint was also dismissed.