The main legal point established is that the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

Satyendra Kumar Gupta, Member - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.3.2008, passed by Palamu District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum), in Consumer Complaint No. 52 of 2007, whereby the appellants were directed to pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost within thirty days from the date of judgment, failing which interest @ 6% was payable from the date of judgment till payment.

2. Limitation for filing appeal, from the date of impugned judgment, expired on 17.4.2008, whereas it has been filed on 21.4.2008. A petition for condonation of delay has been filed under Rule 8(4) of the State Rules, wherein it is stated that free copy of the impugned judgment was supplied to the Counsel of the appellants on 24.3.2008. However, the appellants could know about the judgment dated 18.3.2008 only on 5.4.2008 when their Counsel sent the free copy of the judgment to them. Thereafter, some time was consumed in official procedure and, ultimately, it could be filed on 21.4.2008. From the impugned judgment itself it is evident that the free true copy of the impugned judgment was ready on 24.3.2008. And, from that date (the date of receipt of free copy) the appeal has been filed within thirty days. Therefore, delay of four days in filing the appeal from the date of impugned judgment, is condoned.

3. The complainant-respondent had filed complaint before the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party-appellants to correct the defect of the ATM machine and not to level allegation against him for overdraft from his Account. He also claimed Rs. 10,000 as compensation for harassment.

4. According to the case of the respondent, he had his Account No. 01190010543 with ATM facility of SBI. On 29.11.2006, he received a letter from the appellant-Bank whereby it was informed that there had been overdraft of Rs. 10,000 in his said Account through ATM on 14.6.2006 and he was required to deposit the same. The respondent was surprised. He immediately informed the appellant-Bank vide his petition dated 13.12.2006 that he had neither withdrawn nor he deposited the amount in his Account on 14.6.2006. The Bank staff orally assured him that as the balance was correct, there was nothing to worry. The respondent expected a regret letter from the appellant-Bank, but when he did not receive any such letter, he again wrote on 24.7.2007. Then he received another letter dated 26.7.2007 with the same allegation. Therefore, he filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and claimed the reliefs as aforesaid.

5. The opposite party-appellants appeared, filed written statement and contested the complaint. They contended that the complaint was filed by the complainant only with a view to put pressure upon the appellants not to demand Rs. 10,000, the overdrawn amount by him. According to their case, the respondent had withdrawn Rs. 10,000 through his ATM card No. 622018006100011847 from SBI ATM, Daltonganj bearing No. 00601 for which transaction slip No. 000000007824 was also given to the respondent through ATM. There was problem in the Software of the appellant-Bank from 6.6.2006 to 16.6.2006. As such, SBI Main Branch, Daltonganj had no link with Switch Centre, Belapur, Mumbai in between 6.6.2006 and 16.6.2006, therefore, withdrawal of amount was not carried out by Switch Centre, for the reason of which the withdrawn amount was again credited on the same date, i.e. on 14.6.2006, to the Account of the respondent. He had used his ATM card for withdrawal of amount which was apparent from J.P. Log dated 14.6.2006. From the J.P. Log it was established that through ATM Card of the respondent, Rs. 10,000 was withdrawn on 16.6.2006. It was true that the respondent had not deposited Rs. 10,000 on 14.6.2006 in his Account.

6. It was further said that as soon as the appellant-Bank detected the fault, the respondent was requested to deposi