District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Consumer Case No. 58 of 2008
Sri Suraj Kant Sharan w/o late Janki Sharan
387, co-operative colony, B.S.City, Dist.- Bokaro.
Versus
1. The Assistant General Manager,
Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Main Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur.
2. The Chief Manager,
Bank of Baroda B.S.City Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, B. S. City. Dist.- Bokaro.
Before-
S.M.Alam, President
Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment-: 07 March, 2009
Date of case filing-: 01 July, 2008
-: Judgment:-
The complainant has filed this case and sought relief against the opposite party to pay/refund of Rs. 4000/- along with interest @ 12%, Rs. 25000/- compensation towards mental and physical harassment and Rs. 600/- as cost of correspondence made with the opposite party to the complainant.
2 Brief facts of the case is that the complainant have a saving bank Account no. 10614 in sector IV Branch at City Centre with ATM facilities vide debit card No. 4029850202538432. The complainant availed his debit card facilities the inserting his Debit card in ATM on 28.06.2007 for withdrawal of Rs. 5000/- but the screen of ATM displaced information that his debit card is invalid then the complainant again inserting his card in ATM Machine entering his PIN Code for withdrawal of Rs. 4000/- but instead of allowing withdrawal of required money from ATM Machine displayed information on its screen that card is invalid and no payment either Rs. 5000/- or Rs. 4000/- was received by the complainant from ATM Machine on 28.06.2007. The complainant was in argent need of money, hence the he contacted with the officials Mr. Jha and informed him about the functioning of ATM Machine who expressed his view that properly the card reading of the ATM Machine might have been out of order and advised the complainant to verify the debit card inserting into the ATM Machine of Syndicate Bank to know whether card is valid or not. Upon which the complainant inserted his card in the ATM Machine of the Syndicate Bank which was accepted by the ATM Machine, the complainant informed the said Mr. Jha who aksed the complainant to withdrawal the required money by withdrawal Form and accordingly the complainant withdrawn RS. 20000/- on 28.06.2007 from his account. When the complainant went to his Bank on 30.06.2007 for getting entry in his Passbook with regard to withdrawal of Rs. 20000/- on 28.06.2007, he was surprised to know that his account shows that Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 4000/- have been debited on 28.06.2007 from his account through debit card from ATM Machine. The complainant immediately lodged complaint regarding the said debited amount from his account. The complainant through letter dated 08.09.2007, 06.10.2007 and 26.12.2007 addressed to the opposite party for improper functioning of Bank ATM and in stead of his complaint non transaction of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 4000/- on 28.06.2007 only Rs. 5000/- his reversed to his account but Rs. 4000/- is not credited in his account up till now. The complainant also written letter to Ombudsman of Reserve Bank of India, Gandhi Maidan, Patna on 30.10.2007 and in response of the said letter the Ombudsman call for a report from the opposite party No.2 with regard to his complaint. The complainant subsequently received two letters dated 29.01.2008 and 27.10.2007 from Ombudsman and opposite party No.2 which confirmed that the transaction was made on 28.06.2007 and the opposite party No.2 denied any improper functioning of ATM Machine.
3 The complainant being aggrieved from the aforesaid letters of Ombudsman and opposite party No.2 served an application on 21.05.2008 against the opposite party No.2 under section 6 of Right to Information Act. seeking some information supporting with documents, particularly on the point –
“After receipt of complaint regarding non transaction of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 4000/- on 26.06.2007 from ATM Machine your Bank officials were being satisfied of re-credited the amount of Rs. 5000/- in the account of the complainant though the said amount and Rs. 4000/- were shows withdrawn from his account on 28.06.2007 by ATM”.
The complainant further asked the opposite party No.2 to supply Attested copy of entire transactions, statement dated 28.06.2007 about the ATM Machine, maintained daily in the computer of said ATM and as well as maintained in central Sarver Bank, Mumbai. In response to complainant’s application under section 6 of R. T. I. Act. he received a Xerox copy of letters dated 27.05.2008 addressed to the opposite party No.1 from the opposite party No.2 including with a copy of a letter dated 14.02.2008 and 16.02.2008 both letters are addressed to vide President bob card Ltd. Kolaba, Mumbai from the opposite party No.2 and Xerox copy of letter dated 27.10.2008 addressed to opposite party No.2 from bob card Ltd. and the Xerox copy of statement chart dated 28.06.2007 along with details of 28.06.2007 and 30.06.2007. The complainant on the basis of Xerox copy of letter received came to know that the opposite party claimed that the ATM Transaction has been taken placed as follows-
Date Ref.No. Debit Card Time Amount
28.6.07 733778 40298502025388432 11:29:36 5000/-
28.6.07 774745 do 11:37:14 4000/-
28.6.07 773778 do 11:5325 5000/ That debit of Rs. 5000/- was automatically reverse by the system in customer accounts its credited of Rs. 5000/- on the same date. The claim of customer is that Rs. 4000/- was dispensed by the system for this opposite party referred the matter to bob card Department and legible photo copy of the ATM, General prints covering transaction prior to and after the time mentioned in the complaint were forwarded to BOBCARD were by it is has been confirmed that the ATM transaction is successful for Rs. 4000/- on 28.06.2007. The opposite party vide their letter dated 27.05.2008 in placed to the petition under section 6 of RTI Act dated 21.05.2008 claimed that as per CBS operation of the transaction is successful for Rs. 4000/- on 28.06.2007 at 11:37:14, where as the photo copy of ATM shown covering transaction dated 28.06.07 disclosed that at 11:44:04 hours the attempt for withdrawal of amount was declined by ATM and again at 11:55:25 horse ATM declined cause withdrawal of Rs. 5000/- and thus from the timing for withdrawal of RS. 4000/- maintained in CBS and in ATM Machine print out are defer to each other which clearly support the contention of the complainant for improper functioning of ATM Machine in spite of inserting debit card did not displaced the cash of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 4000/- which the opposite party admitted partly by recovering Rs. 5000/- but denied to re-credited Rs. 4000/- in the account of the complainant on the basis of improper transaction of ATM print out without taking any bother to verify the same from the timing of the CBS transaction statement. The further case of the complainant is that after clearing he came to know that how the ATM transaction have been maintained and function. The ATM transaction by the Bank have been locked with CBS of the concerned Bank and whenever any customer insert his card in ATM firstly massage is recorded in CBS computer then after verifying the account of the customer till instructions to the ATM for dispense the required account to the customer, and at the same time, the computer of CBS and ATM is used to record the said transaction thereafter, debited the withdrawal amount from the account of the customer through the computer of concerned Bank. Therefore, whenever amount withdrawn from the ATM the time and date of such withdrawal has been recorded in both places at same time and date i e in CBS and concerned ATM , has all ATM of concerned Bank have to be controlled by CBS and as such the transaction statement of CBS maintained on 28.06.2007 are required necessary but the opposite party instead of received application under section 6 of RTI Act did not supply the details transaction statement maintained on 28.06.2007 by their CBS with regard to transaction of concerned ATM on 28.06.2007. Due to improper functioning of ATM on 28.06.2007 the complainant could not received cash amount of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 4000/- after inserting debit card but without dispending the said amount the opposite party debited the said amount in the account of the complainant when the complainant was made Rs. 5000/- wrongly debited yours account on 28.06.2007 has been re-credited in his account by the opposite party admitting the fault improper functioning of ATM but refused to re-credited RS. 4000/- and such non co-operation attitude of arbitrary Act of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service causing loss and negligent to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for compensation and other relief as sought in the complaint petition from the opposite parties.
4 After issuance of notices the opposite party appeared and filed their written statement stating there in that the complaint used his ATM Card on 28.06.2007 for withdrawal of Rs. 5000/- which has been debited on 28.06.2007 at 11:29:36 horse but same amount was automatically reversed by the system and the amount was credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant again used the ATM on same date at 11:37:14 horse of withdrawal of Rs. 4000/- and ATM transaction was successful, so the allegation of the complainant is wrong that ATM Machine displayed information of its screen that card is invalid. The opposite party No.2 referred the matter to BOBCARD Department under advised of opposite party No.1 and said Department vide their letter No. CO/DRCARD/0701853 dated 27.10.2007 have confirmed that the ATM transaction with respect to Rs. 4000/- was successful on 28.06.2007 and there is no deficiency in service of Bank. The complainant also withdrawal of Rs. 20000/- through withdrawal form on same date ie 28.06.2007. The opposite parties denied the claimed of the complainant that Rs. 4000/- was not withdrawn by the complainant through ATM in this regard BOBCARD Ltd have confirmed that the ATM transaction is successful so far Rs. 4000/- is concerned on 28.06.2007.
5 The opposite party have categorically stated that the claim of the complainant with regard to none functioning of the ATM Machine on 28.06.2007 is not correct and the complainant’s withdrawn Rs. 4000/- on said date and timing is already mentioned in transaction statement.
6 Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties so far providing Bank service to the complainant, and as such the claim of the complainant for compensation and refund of Rs. 4000/- is not maintainable and at the same time the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought against these opposite parties and the case is fit to be dismissed.
7 Both parties have been heard. On perusal of the case records and documents filed by the parties it is observed that the complainant made three transactions with the opposite party on 28.06.2007. Two transactions were through ATM operation for withdrawal of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 4000/-. The third transaction was through withdrawal slip for withdrawal of Rs. 20000/- from his accounts in question. It appears that the ATM operation for withdrawal of Rs. 5000/- was not successful and the same amount debited was subsequently credited to the account of the complainant on same date. There is no dispute regarding withdrawal of Rs. 20000/-. Withdrawal of Rs. 4000/- through ATM operation by the complainant is in dispute. A copy of the letter no. CO/DRCARD/07/01853 dated 27.10.2007 written by the BOBCARD Ltd. to Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bokaro Steel City is placed in the case records. The BOBCARDS Ltd. is operating ATM network for Bank of Baroda. On scrutiny of the said letter above mentioned, it is found that the transaction through ATM operation by the complainant on 28.06.2007 for withdrawal of Rs. 4000/- from his accounts with the opposite party was successful as per switch, and electronic Journal data available with them.
8 In view of the above we have arrived at the conclusion that the withdrawal of Rs. 4000/- by the complainant from his account with the opposite party thought his ATM operation being successful, debit of the same amount from his account is justified. There is no question of crediting the complainant’s account with the above amount by the opposite party. We, therefore, do not hold the opposite parties negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant. The opposite parties are hence not held liable to pay any relief to the complainant.
9 Under the facts and circumstances of the case no merit is found in the complaint case and the same is dismissed accordingly hereby.
Member (lady) Member President
Tags: Bank of Baroda