STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/507/2017 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, EDAKKARA BRANCH PRESENT ADDRESS - THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PREVIOUSLY STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MALAYIL ARCHADE, EDAKKARA.P.O, MALAPPURAM- 679331 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MANJERITHODIKA JALEEL PRESENT ADDRESS - POTTUKALLU, BHOODHAMAM.P.O, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM-

679334 ,KERALA. .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 26/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 507/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 26.06.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.248/2016 on the files of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

The Manager, State Bank of India (previously State Bank of Travancore), Malayil Arcade, Edakkara P.O., Malappuram – 679 331 (by Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

Vs RESPONDENT:

Manjerithodika Jaleel, S/o Alavi, PothukalluBhoodhamam P.O., Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram – 679 334 (by Adv. Gayathri R. Krishnan)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR :PRESIDENT The appellant is the Manager of State Bank of India, Edakkara, Malappuram.

The opposite party in C.C.No.248/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short, ‘the District Commission’) is the Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Edakkara, Malappuram. Since the State Bank of Travancore had been taken over by the State Bank of India, the Manager, State Bank of India has filed the present appeal.

2. The complainant had an account with the opposite party bank. ATM facilities were also provided to the complainant. On 09.05.2016, the complainant received a message in his mobile that on that date at 6.03 p.m., an amount of Rs.7,800/-was withdrawn from his account through the ATM of SBI at Andheri, Mumbai. The complainant never gave his ATM card to anybody. Though the complainant lodged a complaint before the opposite party on 10.05.2016, no action was taken. Moreover, the complainant was advised to lodge a complaint before the Police. It was the duty of the opposite party to lodge the complaint before the Police and credit the amount lost to his account. Though the complainant lodged a complaint before the Police on 11.05.2016, he was sent back promising that enquiry would be conducted. The amount was withdrawn through the ATM counter of the SBI, Andheri, Mumbai. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to refund the amount.

3. The opposite party filed a version admitting that the complainant is holding an account in the bank of the opposite party. The opposite party also admitted that on 09.05.2016 at 6.03 p.m., an amount of Rs.7,800/-was withdrawn from Mumbai using the ATM card. Somebody misappropriated the funds illegally, fraudulently and dishonestly. As per the details collected by the opposite party regarding the incident, the withdrawal was made from the ATM counter of SBI at Andheri, Mumbai on 09.05.2016. The opposite party had taken sincere efforts to find out the actual fact. The SBI concerned was directed to furnish the footage and other details. Only some clips were forwarded by the State Bank of India. Either the complainant himself or any other person for the complainant might have withdrawn the amount and the inaction of the complainant is the testimony for the same. Since the amount was withdrawn through the ATM of SBI, they are liable to refund the amount and hence the SBI has to be impleaded as a party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The debit cards are not in the control of the opposite party. However, the debit cards are under the control of the customer. The Police did not take any appropriate action on the complaint.

4. Before the District Commission, the complainant and the opposite party filed proof affid