RAJESHWAR SINGH vs STATE BANK

THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 15. 2. 2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Union Territory Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed as meritless.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that appellant (complainant) is having account No. 01190020611 in State Bank of Patiala, Mohali. On 1. 1. 2005 he had opening balance of Rs. 95403. His marriage was fixed for 22. 1. 2005 and he urgently required money, so, he felt need to operate his ATM card. It was next averred that firstly he went to the ATM outlet , State Bank of Patiala, General Hospital, Mohali on 20/21. 1. 2005 and when he inserted his card, the same was returned by the ATM Machine with the remarks "unable to process". Later on he made strenuous efforts to withdraw the money by inserting his card in the ATM machine installed in the premises of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 but the card was returned with the remarks "unable to process. "

It was further averred that appellant personally went to branch office of State Bank of Patiala on 21. 1. 2005 to withdraw the amount of Rs. 15,000 for his urgent needs but he was shocked to see the statement that an amount of Rs. 25,000 had been debited to his account which he had never withdrawn. He had only withdrawn Rs. 15,000 on 21. 1. 2005. No explanation was given for the entry showing withdrawal of Rs. 25,000.

ALLEGING deficiency in service, the complaint was filed. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, 5 and 6 contested the complaint and controverted the allegations but admitted that appellant had existing opening balance of Rs. 95,403 on 1. 1. 2005. They further stated that according to ATM withdrawal system, whenever any customer wanted to withdraw some money, the customer had to use his pin number (password) which was a secret number and was only known to the customer and none else and according to the record of the bank the amounts as mentioned in para-5 of the complaint had actually been withdrawn. They next stated that there was no deficiency on their part and as such complaint should be dismissed.

RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 3 after due service did not appear, hence, were proceeded against ex parte. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 15. 2. 2008 dismissed the complaint being merit-less.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.

WE have heard Counsel for the appellant Mr. Rajesh Khurana and carefully gone through the file. There is no dispute about it that appellant (complainant) was holding account No. 01190020611 in State Bank of Patiala, Mohali branch and on 1. 1. 2005 he had opening balance of Rs. 95,403. Now the question to be seen is whether he had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 25,000 on 20/21. 1. 2005 as alleged by the respondents or had not withdrawn any amount on that date as system of ATM installed at the premises of respondents No. 2 to 5 was unable to process. It is further his case that he had only withdrawn Rs. 15,000 on 21. 1. 2005. A perusal of report dated 13. 5. 2005 of respondent No. 5 shows that the appellant had made a complaint regarding use of ATM card No. 6038455050200023710 and it was found that no excess amount in the concerned ATM had been found on that date. The copy of the J. P. Rolls (Annexure R-1) further shows that an amount as per TXN No. 330 for Rs. 10,000 of account number 01190020611 at 11. 58 had been withdrawn and further an amount of Rs. 15,000 had been withdrawn from the account vide TXN No. 332. Thus, record of the bank positively indicated that an amount of Rs. 25,000 had been withdrawn either by the appellant or by someone else by misusing card of the appellant to whom he may have handed over. The appellant has not led any evidence that he had not withdrawn the amount of Rs. 25,000 or ATM system was not in operation on 20/21. 1. 2005.

We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed in limine.

COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.