(Article) Legal Decisions Affecting Bankers - Whether, Bank is liable for deficiency in service?

Issue: 

Whether, Bank is liable for deficiency  in service? 

Facts:  Smt. Surinder Kaur (Kaur/Complainant) and her husband had joint savings account with State Bank of India (SBI). The Bank had  issued two ATM cards both for Husband and Wife at their request. Kaur’s husband was serving in army in West Bengal. His salary  was credited to the said joint account by his employer. 

It was  the  case of Kaur that  on 15/3/2011 she  went  to operate ATM of State Bank of Patiala (SBOP/Appellant). After pressing the button of ATM by Kaur for withdrawal of ₹27000/-, the ATM could not dispense the cash and thinking that the ATM may not be working, she  went to adjoining  ATM maintained by SBOP. At the  adjoining ATM she  was  apprised by some other  customer that, she  cannot withdraw  ₹27000/- at  one  stroke  and  as such  she  withdrew  ₹10,000/- from the  ATM. She  also confirmed  that  the  Balance to  the  credit  of said  joint account after  said  withdrawal  was  ₹28,967.02 as on

15/3/2011. On  24/3/2011, her  husband operated ATM at West  Bengal  to withdraw  from the  said  account; but he could not get the money  due to insufficient funds.  On an inquiry, his wife informed him that she  had withdrawn only ₹10,000/- not  ₹27000/-  and  account was  having balance  of  ₹ 28,967.02. She   made  enquiries  with SBI  and  the  SBI  after  checking the  account credited

*Deputy  Director (Legal),  Indian Institute of Banking & Finance.

₹27000/-  to  the  said  account on  8/4/2011. However SBI on  15/4/2011 debited said  account by ₹27000/-. When her  request for refund/credit of ₹27000/-   was not entertained by the SBI/SBOP, alleging  deficiency  in service she  filed a  consumer complaint  before  District Consumer  Redressal  Forum   (Forum)   against   SBI/ SBOP  for refund  of ₹27000/-  with interest @24%  from

15/3/2011 till realization. She also claimed compensation of ` 50,000/- for mental  agony  and physical  harassment besides ₹ 5,500/-  towards litigations expenses. 

SBI  filed  written  statement stating   that  the  ATMs  of the  banks are  interlinked  and  whenever amount was withdrawn  by  Kaur,  the  same will be  debited to  her account. SBI  further  contended that  the  complaint   of Kaur  was   forwarded  to  their  office  at  Belapur/Navi Mumbai  and  as per  their  instructions the  amount was credited to her  account. Though  the  matter  was  taken up  with SBOP  to  reimburse the  said  amount; but  on their  refusal   SBI  debited her  account by ₹27000/-. SBOP   also   denied  any   deficiency   in  service  on  its part  by  filing written  statement by  producing various documents.  SBOP   further  denied  having   knowledge about  disputed transaction for want  of notice  from the Kaur/Complainant.

The  Forum  after  hearing the  parties and  based on the evidence before it allowed the claim of Complainant Kaur. Aggrieved by the order of Forum, SBOP  filed an Appeal challenging the same before  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC),  Chandigarh. 

Observations and Decision:

It  was   the   case  of  SBOP   that   the   transaction  for withdrawal  of ₹27000/-  by the Complainant/Kaur was successful. It could  be  seen from the  entries in Logs dated 15/3/2011 relating  to  both  ATM machines that The Journal of Indian Institute of Banking & Finance as per transaction No. 988,  ₹27000/-  was  successfully withdrawn  from ATM machine No. xxx at 14:37:18 with the help of ATM card  issued to Kaur. Further  as per the records it is apparent that the cash in the ATM prior to said  transaction was  ₹38,54,400/- and  was  reduced to ₹38,27,400/- after  the  transaction (38,54,00 --₹ 38,27,400 = ₹ 27000).  Therefore there  was  sufficient cash balance in the machine to dispense ₹ 27000/- There were  subsequent entries of transaction as forthcoming from the log and  it goes to show  that ATM was  indeed working  without  fault.  On  the  specific  demand dated

03/11/2011 by the complainant for production of CCTV footage of the  transaction/s; SBOP  had  submitted that the  CCTV  footage was   not  possible to  be  retrieved after 6 months from the date  of transaction. It was  also explained by the SBOP  that the customers of SBI ATM card  holders can  withdraw  maximum  ₹40,000/- in a day  and  Rs.  35,000/- in a single  transaction. The  said fact is forthcoming  from the records of other  customers having transacted accordingly. Therefore it is utter false on the part of Kaur to state that ₹27000/-  could not be dispensed to her in one stroke. 

SBOP, based on the  evidences submitted has  proved that transaction No. 988 for ₹27000/- had  taken  place at 14:37  hrs  and  after  the  said  transaction/withdrawal, the  balance in  the  account of  Kaur  was  ₹1,967.02. Hence it is  false  to  state by  Kaur  that  she   withdrew another ₹10,000/- after  failed transaction (No. 988)  as it is utterly impossible to withdraw another Rs. 10,000/- when  the  balance in her  account itself was  to the  tune of ₹1,967.02, (₹  28,967.02 – ₹ 27,000=    Rs.1967.02). Further  it could  be  seen from the  records produced by the  SBOP  that  the  transaction No. 8561  for ₹10,000/- was   made at  14:30:04  hrs  on  15/3/2011  and   which was  apparently prior to  the  transaction for ₹27000/- made at  14:37  hrs.  The  records go  to  show  that  the complainant in-fact  withdrew  Rs.  10,000/- at  the  first instance and   there-after ₹27000/- on  15/3/2011  by two ATM transactions. The  whole  story  put-up  by the complainant Kaur  was  false  and  concocted.  She  has produced statement of account from 17/3/2011 onwards to  show  the  credit  of ₹27000/- on  7/4/2011 and  the debit  of same on 15/4/2011. She  withheld the  relevant statement dated 15/3/2011 to conceal actual  facts  and entries of withdrawals  made on that day. 

Complainant Kaur  makes an  application on  3/11/2011 for   CCTV   footage  of   relevant  transaction   after   6 months of disputed transaction as she  was  sure  that same could  not  be  retrieved after  6  months from the date  of transaction. Moreover,  had  it been the  case of Complainant/ Kaur that her ATM card was stolen  and in such  situation  CCTV footage could have  been relevant. Hence the reasoning of Forum  that CCTV footage was not available does not mean that the money  could have been withdrawn  fraudulently. Her  account was  initially credited by ₹27000/- on 7.4.2011 but was debited later on 13.4.2011 as per the advice  of SBOP. From the logs, reports and  other  records, it is clear  that  the there  was indeed withdrawal  of ₹27000/- on  15/3/2011 and  as such  the debit of said amount is absolutely based on the said documents/records. 

Therefore  the   State  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission accepting the  Appeal  of SBOP  set  aside the order of Forum and dismissed the complaint  of Kaur with cost of ₹ 5000/- for presenting wrong and concocted facts in her complaint. 

Courtesy: M.G.Kulkarni