JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The respondent/complainant had an account with the petitioner State Bank of India and was issued an ATM card which enabled him to withdraw cash from the ATMs. On 10-11-2011, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant, using the ATM card provided to him, at the ATM machine of respondent No.2-Punjab National Bank. Claiming that he had not made any use of the ATM on the aforesaid date nor had he given the said card to any person for withdrawing the money from the bank, the complainant demanded the video clipping of the footage recorded by the camera installed in the ATM, which respondent No.2 had earlier supplied to the petitioner-bank. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid video footage was shown to the complainant and his son-in-law when they visited the bank but it was found that he quality of the footage was very poor and there was mismatch of timing of the said footage and the timing recorded by the ATM. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties i.e. State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking the video footage as well as payment of Rs.10,000/- which was withdrawn from his account. He also sought cost of litigation and compensation from the opposite parties.
2. The complaint was opposed by the petitioner-State Bank of India on the ground that cash from the ATM could not have been withdrawn without use of the ATM pin which it had provided to him. As regards the video footage it was claimed that the same was shown to the complainant and his son-in-law. The petitioner-bank, however, did not specifically denied the claim of the complainant that a copy of the said video footage was not supplied to him despite request made by him in this regard.
3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 03-10-2013 directed the petitioner bank to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with interest on that amount, at the rate of 9% per annum. The petitioner bank was also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20-03-2014, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.
5. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cash from the account of the complainant could have been withdrawn without use of the ATM card which the petitioner bank had issued to him along with use of the pin which the bank had provided to him. If the complainant himself did not withdraw cash from the bank on 10-11-2011, as is claimed by him, his ATM card must have been stolen or otherwise obtained by some unscrupulous person. Not only that, the ATM pin must have been either disclosed by the complainant to the person who withdrew cash from the bank or he would not have kept it in safe custody as a result of which the person who withdrew the money through the use of the ATM could lay his hand on the said pin and later feed the pin in the ATM machine while using the ATM card issued to the complainant. Therefore, no deficiency in services is made out on account of the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from the bank account of the complainant on 10-11-2011.
6. It is an admitted case that CCTV recording was provided by the respondent No.2-Punjab National Bank to the petitioner State Bank of India but despite request of the complainant a copy of the said video footage was not provided to him. Though according to the petitioner bank the said video footage was shown to the complainant and his son-in-law when they visited the bank, that in our opinion would not be sufficient and considering the fraudulent withdrawal claimed by the complainant the bank ought to have made available a copy of the aforesaid CCTV footage to the complainant. The petitioner bank, therefore, was deficient in rendering services to the complainant, by not making available a copy of the aforesaid CCTV footage to him.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove the order of the District Forum and the State Commission to the extent the petitioner bank has been directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with interest is set aside. However, the order to the extent it awards compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant is upheld. The revision petition stands disposed of. ......................J
V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER