IMPORTANT POINT
Fraudulent withdrawal – Bank has no control over ATM when transaction is successful by providing card pin and operations.

ORDER

Ravishankar, Judicial Member—OP in CC/59/2013 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Commission is directed them to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- which was fraudulently withdrawn at ATM and also directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation along with Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony.

2. The Brief facts of the case of the complainant is that:

Complainant having SB account bearing No.32509334950 at appellant bank had obtained an ATM facilities. Such being the case, on 24.06.2013 he had a balance amount of Rs.2,015/- in his SB account and attempted to withdraw Rs.500/-. But he has received only receipt without withdrawal of the amount. The complainant again in order to confirm the balance amount had made a transactions wherein he received the receipt stating that balance amount is only Rs.15/-. The complainant has not withdrawn any Rs.2,000/- prior to this transaction. Inspite of that an amount of Rs.2,000/- was deducted fraudulently and the same was reflected in the statement of account. Hence he alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before District Commission and sought for compensation of Rs.60,000/- and also Rs.30,000/- for mental agony. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed complainant to pay the above said amount.

3. The Learned advocate of appellant submits that the order passed by District Commission is not in accordance with law. The transaction log which was maintained by the ATM discloses that an amount of Rs.2,000/- was withdrawn on 24.06.2013 at 10:11 hrs. Therefore, the balance amount discloses in the receipt received by the complainant but suppressing the said fact the complainant had filed a complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for compensation. There is no deficiency in service on this appellant bank when the transaction was successful at ATM but the District Commission failed to appreciate the said fact and allowed the complaint. Therefore, the order passed by District Commission is not in accordance with law and not legally acceptable. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by District Commission.

4. Heard both the parties.

5. Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal along with other documents produced.

6. The appellant had produced the transaction log of ATM installed at Davanagere. The said transaction discloses on 24.06.2013 an amount of Rs.2,000/- was withdrawn and the transaction was successful. This appellant bank had no control over the ATM when the transaction was successful by providing card pin and operations. When the document produced by the appellant states that the transaction was successful. The subsequent transaction made by the complainant for withdrawal of Rs.500/- is not going to be successful. Hence the display receipt reflected balance of Rs.15/-. We don’t find any irregularity or deficiency in service on the part of appellant bank. But the District Commission failed to appreciate the document produced and allowed the complaint. In fact complainant had not produced proper documents to show whether an amount of Rs.2,000/- was withdrawn or not. In the absence of such, the order passed by District Commission suffers legality. Complainant is not entitled for any amount. Hence found grounds to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently, set aside the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed in CC/59/2013 by DCDRC, Davanagere and as a result dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs.

7. Remit back the LCR to concerned District Commission and the amount in deposit is directed to refund to appellant with proper identification by his or her advocate.

8. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for information.