IMPORTANT POINT
Bank should be honest in dealing with genuine complaints.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner T.N.Ravi Prakash, against the order dated 17.02.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.2028 of 2011.

2. Complainant has filed this revision petition. Complainant is having savings bank account with the respondent bank. On 14.01.2009 complainant withdrew Rs.3,500/- from the ATM counter installed in the premises of the respondent bank and again on 18.1.2009 he withdrew Rs.2,000/. While withdrawing Rs.2,000/- on 18.01.2009 the complainant took the mini statement and found that an amount of Rs.35,000/- was debited on 14.01.2009 to his S.B. account apart from the debit entry of Rs.3,500/- representing the amount drawn on that day by him. Complainant made written complaint to respondent bank on 19.01.2009 regarding the wrong debit entry of Rs.35,000/- dated 14.01.2009. Complainant took mini statement of his S.B Account on 19.01.2009 itself and found debit entry of Rs.20,000/- on 18.01.2009 in his account apart from the debit entry of Rs.2,000/- showing the amount drawn by him on 18.01.2009. This fact was also immediately brought to the notice of respondent bank on 19.01.2009 itself. The bank officials advised him to withdraw some amount in their presence to check the balance and the complainant withdrew Rs.1,000/- in the same ATM counter and at that time there was only one debit entry of Rs.1,000/-. It is alleged that on 20.01.2009 he again made complaint to respondent bank to rectify the earlier wrong debit entries in his account but in vain. Complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent bank to pay Rs.35,000/- and Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective wrongful debit entries.

3. Being aggrieved, respondent bank filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Hence this revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of the State Commission is cryptic in nature. It has only considered Journal Print Log (JP Log) and decided the whole case accordingly. The bank has not given clearly two timings of use of the card on 14.01.2009. For the transactions on 18.01.2009, the timings mentioned in the written statement of the opposite party for withdrawal of amounts of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively do not match with the assertion of the opposite party. It has been mentioned in the written statement that at 13:06 hours he has withdrawn amount of Rs.2,000/- from first ATM and at 13:08 hours he has made a balance enquiry at the same ATM, which showed that the balance available in the account was Rs.43,128.37. Again at 13:14 hours he has taken a mini statement through the same ATM. It is stated that thereafter at 11:52 hours he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.20,000/-through his ATM card from the adjacent second ATM. The contradiction is clearly notable that if the first ATM was used after 13:00 hours three times then thereafter how was it possible to use ATM at 11:52 hours.

5. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the video clip of these transactions has not been produced by the bank. The observations of the State Commission in this regard that video clips would have only shown face of the person and not the key board or the scream is erroneous because the video clipping would have atleast proved the presence of the complainant on the second ATM. The State Commission has taken a contradictory stand by first observing in paragraph No.13 that “The opposite party did not take steps for verifying the video footage as the same would have been helpful for reconciliation or cross checking of the accounts generated by ATM at different levels.” and then in the next paragraph No. 14 the State Commission has further observed on the basis of the judgment of the National C