STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs Sumit Kumar And Anr.

THIS Revision Petition is being filed against the impugned Order/judgment dated 9.8.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, State Commission), Uttrakhand, Dehradun in First Appeal No. 337/2010 which upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, District Forum), Uttarakhand, Haridwar passed on 21.6.2010 in Compliant Case No. 43 of 2009. The Facts in Brief.

The Complainant is an account holder of O.P. -1 State Bank of India, Lucknow and used to withdraw his salary through ATM. On 3.10.2008 he used ATM of State Bank of Patiala at Haridwar i.e. O.P. -2 who is Petitioner herein for withdrawal of his salary amount, but he could not withdraw the amount of Rs. 10,000 for which complainant tried for six times. Despite that he got a slip through said ATM showing as Rs. 10,000 was withdrawn from his account and credit balance of Rs. 339.

THE Complainant sent a notice to the O.Ps. but no action was taken. Hence, alleging such deficient services by O.Ps. the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum/Haridwar on 16.2.2009. The O.P. denied any deficiency and pleaded that the transaction was successfully completed and their account did not show any excess of Rs. 10,000 and stated that said complaint is based on wrong facts. The District Forum allowed the complaint and passed a reasoned order, thereby, directing the O.Ps. to deposit amount of Rs. 10,000 in the Complainant account within one month and Rs. 5,000 as a compensation.

AGAINST the order of District Forum the O.P. -2 preferred an appeal in the State Commission. The State Commission going through the evidence and material placed on record, the copies of ATM customer advice, received through the ATM in question; dismissed the appeal.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission the O.P. -2 preferred this Revision Petition before us. We have heard the learned Counsel of the petitioner. He has brought our attention to the customer slips and also the notification at the lower end all of slip. O.P. contented that the Complainant had not communicated immediately to the 24x7 helpline or Customer Care of the bank but he had sent the legal notice after 60 days. Thereafter, the Complainant asked the video clippings. But the video clippings of the ATM are stored only up to 180 days. Hence, the transaction number 6329 in question was 6 months old which was not recoverable.

WE have perused all the ATM Customer Service advises placed on record which clearly show that the ATM in question was not working properly. Even, when the Complainant sent a legal notice after 60 days it was the duty of the Petitioner who should have preserved the records like video clippings or O.P. should have prudent enough to recover the transaction number 6329 i.e. log in question.

ON perusal of copy of the customer engineer call report on record clearly shows that the ATM was checked by engineer and in his remark mentioned as transaction No. 6329 log is six months old and not recoverable. Hence, it is very much clear that after receiving of legal notice i.e. after 60 days till 180 days the O.P. did not act prudently. Hence, the O.P. did not prove his contention. It amounts to deficiency in service and dereliction of legal duty. Accordingly, the O.P. is liable to compensate the Complainant.

THE Counsel for the Petitioner argued the matter and brought to our notice that at every transaction of ATM the machine gives a customer advice slip. But one transaction showed at 15.37 showed Credit Balance of Rs. 339 after withdrawal of Rs. 10,000 which complainant did not receive, another slip at the same time 15.37 hrs. showed as "Lorry Unable to process." The subsequently further 4 slips till 16.13 hrs. showed irrelevant remarks like "transaction completed" or "Sorry Unable to Process." We have perused all the 7 ATM customer service advice slips on record of date 10.3.2008 at 15.37 hrs. to 16.13 hrs. which clearly shows disparity. Also perused a newspaper cutting publication which on record stated that "closure of a faulty ATM which was giving more money than asked".

THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner''s main objection was why the complainant has taken 60 days to communicate for such transactions and subsequently the Complainant asked about the video clipping afterwards but the machines clogs to surveillance is up to 180 days only. It is quite surprising to note about the intentions of State Bank of Patiala. The complainants did not contact their helpline immediately means O.P. got a right to forfeit the claim of complainant and lose his hard earned money. As such most of the consumers in India had very bitter experiences from the Customer Care Services or the 24 x 7 Help Line/Toll free numbers from most of the commercial service providers. Those Help Lines either not accessible or even after access you will be put on answering machine and made to wait/follow the instructions and finally you will be disconnected from conversation....!! Those are "Helpless Lines" and not fool proof....!!! which instead of solving the problems create more confusion in minds of consumers at large. Every person is not competent to enough and it is also necessary to consider the time and circumstances for using such help lines. Hence, we do not find any wrong on the part of complainant that he has sent legal notice instead of wasting time through Customer Care. Therefore, there is deficiency in service by the petitioner and we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Fora below and dismiss this Revision Petition. No order as to costs.