AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
The complainant / petitioner had a saving bank account with Jagatsinghpur Branch of the State Bank of India. The bank had issued an ATM card, along with the ATM PIN to him, to enable him to make withdrawal from an ATM. The case of the petitioner / complainant is that on 3.7.2013, he withdrew a sum of Rs.6,000/- form the ATM at about 1.10 pm. Soon thereafter, he received a message on his mobile, informing him that he had made two withdrawals, one of Rs.20,000/- and the other of Rs.6,000/-. The case of the petitioner / complainant is that the withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- which happened at about 1.09 p.m. was not made by him. Since the bank did not address the complaint made by him in this regard on the same day, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, after lodging an FIR.
The complaint was resisted by the respondent Bank, which denied any deficiency on its part in rendering services to the complainant and maintained that both the withdrawals were made by the complainant himself, using the ATM card and ATM PIN provided to him by the bank.
The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the respondent bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 31.10.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the bank and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner / complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
It is not in dispute that the complainant himself had gone to ATM for making withdrawal on 03.7.2013. Atleast one withdrawal made by him through the same ATM on the same date is not in dispute. The admitted withdrawal was made at about 1.10 pm. Since the withdrawal through an ATM cannot be made without use of ATM Card and ATM PIN, no-one other than the complainant could have made withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- at about 1.09 pm on the same day since admittedly the ATM Card was in possession of the complainant even at 1.09 pm. Therefore, it would be difficult to accept the case of the complainant that though he made withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- at about 1.10 pm, the withdrawal at 1.09 pm was not made by him. The plea taken by him is just impossible, since he did not part with the ATM Card and the ATM PIN was known only to him.
The District Forum held against the Bank on the ground that the CCTV footage of the ATM was not produced by the bank and only some still photographs were filed. The view taken by the District Forum was unsustainable since even the video footage could have shown only the presence of the complainant at the ATM, whereas in the present case, it is not in dispute that the complainant was present at the ATM, at the time, the withdrawals were made. The view taken by the State Commission therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore dismissed.
The fee of the Amicus Curiae appointed in this petition, be paid as per rules of the Registry.