Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member
SATYANARAYAN PANDEY - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2988 of 2015 against Order dated 23.9.2015 in First Appeal No. 14 of 803 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Decided on : 21-06-2017
In person, for the Petitioner; None, for the Respondents
The burden of proof lies with the complainant to show that an unauthorized transaction occurred, and prompt reporting of such transactions is crucial.
Headnote:
ATM Fraud - Consumer Dispute - Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Section 4 - Summary: The court discussed the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Section 4, which governs electronic fund transfers and provides for the liability of financial institutions in case of unauthorized transactions. The court emphasized the importance of prompt reporting of unauthorized transactions and the burden of proof on the complainant to show that the transaction was not authorized. The interpretation of the court focused on the lack of evidence provided by the complainant to prove that the ATM transaction was unsuccessful, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner attempted to withdraw money from an ATM but found that the amount was debited from his account without receiving the cash. The District Forum ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the State Commission dismissed the complaint, believing that the transactions were successful and the money was delivered to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Commission's decision did not contain any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error, and thus dismissed the revision petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's complaint regarding the unauthorized ATM transaction was valid, and whether the State Commission's decision was legally sound.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prompt reporting of unauthorized transactions and the burden of proof on the complainant to show that the transaction was not authorized. The lack of evidence provided by the complainant to prove that the ATM transaction was unsuccessful influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the State Commission's decision.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Satyanarayan Pandey, against the order dated 23.9.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, (in short The State Commission') passed in First Appeal No. 14/803.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is resident of Bhilai having business of textile/cloth. His son was studying at Mumbai. The complainant had gone to Mumbai and he tried to take out Rs. 10,000 from the ATM of opposite party No. 2/Axis bank at 10.50 a.m. using his ATM card of the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1. However, no money came out of the machine and the complainant again tried second time to withdraw the money, but this time also he was not successful. The complainant then came back to Bhilai on 24.9.2012. On 16.10.2012, he got his passbook updated from the State Bank of India and he came to know that his account has been debited for Rs. 20,000 on 22.9.2012. The complainant then made complaint to concerned Branch a Manager of the State Bank of India and was promised that inquiry will be made. He made complaint in writing on 18.12.2012 to the Branch Manager of Axis Bank. The complainant also filed complaint on 19.1.2013 with the Banking Ombudsman. However, the banking Ombudsman rejected the complaint on 15.3.2013. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint No. CC/13/87 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg, (in short 'the District Forum'), which was resisted by the opposite party No. 1 on the ground that the money was withdrawn using ATM by the complainant on 22.9.2012 at 10.50 a.m. and 10.51 a.m. at Mumbai and transactions are recorded in the electronic general file. ATMs are very sophisticated machines being used all over the world and such mistakes are not possible. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 25.11.2014 and ordered that the non applicant shall pay Rs. 20,000 to the complainant along with the a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for harassment and mental agony.
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2014 of the District Forum, the opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide its order 23.9.2015 and the complaint was also dismissed.
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard the petitioner in person at admission stage and perused the record.
6. The petitioner stated that on 22.9.2012 he tried to take out the money from the ATM of the Axis Bank/opposite party No. 2 using ATM issued by opposite party No. 1 where he had an account. However, even in the two attempts no money came out of the ATM and he was under the impression that the money has not been withdrawn. However, when he got his passbook updated on 16.10.2012, he came to know that Rs. 20,000 has been debited in his account on 22.9.2012. Then he started making complaints and finally filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint, but the State Commission has dismissed the complaint by allowing the appeal filed by opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1. The State Commission has believed the version of the opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1 that the transactions were successful and money was delivered to the petitioner, which is not correct. Hence the order of the State Commission needs to be set aside and the complaint may be allowed.
7. I have carefully considered the averments made by the petitioner and have gone through the material on record. It is found that the State Commission has allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint on many grounds. The first ground is that the transactions have been found successful as per the electronic general file, whose copy was filed before the State Commission and the transactions are shown successful and money delivered. The State Commission has further observed that, though, the money was debited on 22.9.2012, but the complainant star
