- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Veena Rani v. State Bank of Patiala
Structured Summary of the Opinion — State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab & Chandigarh
Factual and Procedural Background
The complainant, Veena Rani, who held an account with respondent no.1, alleged an unauthorized debit of Rs. 8,000 from her account. She received a message about the debit and approached respondent no.1 with her son to enquire, submitted a written complaint and was allegedly insulted when she followed up. She later issued a legal notice to the respondents which went unanswered. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and sought refund of Rs. 8,000 with interest, compensation of Rs. 70,000 for mental harassment, and Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses.
Both respondents filed written replies denying liability. Their case was that the complainant herself withdrew Rs. 8,000 using her ATM/debit card on 14.04.2018 at respondent no.2's ATM and that transaction logs (JP Log) and system records supported this. The District Forum, after evidence and submissions, dismissed the complaint by order dated 24.09.2019. The complainant appealed to this Commission (First Appeal No.753 of 2019).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the withdrawal of Rs. 8,000 on 14.04.2018 was an authorized transaction by the complainant or an unauthorized debit for which the banks are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
- Whether discrepancies in record timing (passbook update on 19.04.2018 and ATM log times) and non-preservation/availability of CCTV footage undermine the banks' defence and require setting aside the District Forum's order.
- Whether the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint based on the material and evidence on record.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The passbook entry showing the withdrawal was updated on 19.04.2018 (though the alleged withdrawal date was 14.04.2018), and the SMS alert was received on 19.04.2018 — facts which, according to counsel, undermine the respondents' case that the appellant withdrew the money on 14.04.2018.
- There was a discrepancy in system timings: one bank document showed the ATM card being swiped at 10:03:24 while cash was recorded as taken at 12:12:21, suggesting the cash remained in the ATM for about two hours — presented as improbable and indicative of irregularity.
- As per RBI guidelines, respondent no.1 failed to preserve CCTV footage after receiving the complaint and did not conduct a proper inquiry, contrary to required procedure.
- The District Forum failed to appreciate these crucial facts and wrongly concluded that the appellant herself withdrew the amount; the appeal prayed for setting aside the District Forum's order and acceptance of the complaint.
Respondent No.1's (Bank) Arguments
- The transaction on 14.04.2018 was a successful withdrawal by the complainant using her ATM/debit card (card no. partly quoted) at respondent no.2's ATM between 10:00 a.m. and 10:10 a.m., and system logs/JP Log corroborate the same.
- No excess cash was found in the ATM on that day; there was no deficiency or unfair practice on the bank's part.
- The District Forum correctly dismissed the complaint after examining evidence, and the appeal should be dismissed.
Respondent No.2's (ATM Bank) Arguments
- The complainant used her ATM card on 14.04.2018 at respondent no.2's ATM and withdrew Rs. 8,000; transaction records (Ex.OP-2/2 and JP Log) show the transaction was successful.
- The passbook update on 19.04.2018 was a technical IT issue of updating the passbook and does not mean the transaction did not occur on 14.04.2018; the complainant cannot claim the amount twice due to such a technical discrepancy.
- Relying on precedents, respondent contended that absence of CCTV footage and technical anomalies do not by themselves establish bank liability, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sandeep v. Branch Manager, PNB & another (Revision Petition No.2298 of 2013) — decision referenced (24.01.2020) | Where ATM transaction shows successful response code and debit in account, the onus is on the complainant to prove alleged unauthorized transaction; absence of extra undispensed money and system success code indicate valid transaction. | The Commission noted the principle that the onus to prove wrongful debit lies on the complainant and relied on this reasoning to uphold the District Forum's conclusion that the transaction was successful and not a bank deficiency. |
| State Bank of India v. K.K. Bhalla, 2011(3) CLT-256 | Non-availability of CCTV footage does not necessarily mean that money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using the ATM card and PIN; elaborate bank procedures make unauthorized withdrawals without card/PIN unlikely. | The Commission expressly relied on this authority to reject the appellant's contention that lack of CCTV footage implies bank fault, holding that absence of footage is not determinative of unauthorized withdrawal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission conducted a focused examination of the record and arguments and proceeded through the following analytical steps:
- Verification of Account Relationship and Records: The Commission accepted that the complainant held an account with respondent no.1. It examined Ex.C-3 (the passbook) and concluded that the passbook showed the withdrawal entry dated 14.04.2018 even though the physical updation was reflected on 19.04.2018; the Commission treated the latter as an update action and refused to allow the appellant to derive advantage from the delayed updation.
- Assessment of Timestamp Discrepancy Argument: The Commission considered the appellant's argument about a timing discrepancy (swipe at 10:03:24 and cash recorded at 12:12:21). The Commission found this contention untenable on the available record and rejected it on analogy with the passbook updation issue, concluding that the appellant should not benefit from such technical/time-record anomalies without stronger proof.
- Consideration of CCTV Preservation Claim: The Commission reviewed the complaint (Ex.C-4, dated 23.04.2018) and observed that the complainant had not requested preservation of CCTV footage in that complaint. The Commission further relied on the precedent in State Bank of India v. K.K. Bhalla, holding that non-availability of CCTV footage does not necessarily establish that money was fraudulently withdrawn without the card and PIN. Accordingly, the Commission rejected the contention that failure to preserve CCTV footage proved bank liability.
- Inquiry Conducted by Bank: The Commission examined the bank's response evidence (Ex.OP-1/2) and found that respondent no.1 did conduct an enquiry and communicated the ATM switch centre's response to the complainant, thereby negating the assertion that no enquiry was made.
- Overall Evaluation of Onus: Applying the principle that the complainant bears the onus to prove unauthorized debit (as reflected in the cited authorities), the Commission found no factual or legal error in the District Forum's finding that the transaction was successful and that the banks were not liable for deficiency in service on the facts of the case.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Forum dated 24.09.2019 (dismissing the complaint) is upheld.
Implications:
- Direct effect on parties: The complainant's challenge to the Rs. 8,000 debit fails; the banks are not directed to refund the amount, pay interest, or award the claimed compensation or litigation expenses in this matter.
- Precedential impact: The Commission applied existing precedents (including State Bank of India v. K.K. Bhalla) and did not announce any new legal principle; the decision upholds the principle that system logs showing successful transactions and absence of other conclusive proof place the onus on the complainant to prove unauthorized withdrawal.
Administrative note from the file: The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of work and less staff (recorded in the order).
2nd ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.753 of 2019 Date of Institution: 21.11.2019 Order reserved on: 06.07.2020 Date of Decision : 21.07.2020 Veena Rani aged 54 years, W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar, R/o Street No.7-R, Balbir Avenue, Faridkot, Tehsil & Distt. Faridkot (Pb.). .Appellant/complainant Versus
1. State Bank of Patiala now merged with State Bank of India situated at KNJ School Branch, Faridkot, through its Branch Manager.
2. OBC Bank Branch Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot, through its Manager. .....Respondents/Opposite Parties First Appeal against order dated 24.09.2019 passed by District Forum, Faridkot. Quorum:- Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member. Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member. Present:- For the appellant : Sh. Lalit Sharma, Advocate For respondent no.1 : Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate For respondent no.2 : Mrs. Anuradha Gupta, Advocate First Appeal No.753 of 2019 2 KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER:- This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against order dated 24.09.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short, the District Forum), whereby the complaint filed by appellant/complainant against respondents/opposite parties (in short OPs) was dismissed. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the Complaint
2. Brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that complainant had an account no.55144643144 in OP no.1 bank. On 19.04.2018, the complainant received a message on her cell phone regarding debit of Rs.8000/- from her account. She approached OP no.1 alongwith her son and enquired about the said deduction of Rs.8000/-, but to no avail. She again approached OP no.1 to know about the illegal withdrawal from her account and gave a written complaint for verification about the said deduction and OP no.1 assured to verify the reason for the said deduction within a few days. On 30.04.2018, she again approached OP no.1 alongwith her son in this regard but OP no.1 did not pay any heed to her genuine requests, rather insulted her by using foul language. Thereafter, a legal notice was served upon OPs by the complainant for the redressal of her grievance but OPs failed to reply to the same. She alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of First Appeal No.753 of 2019 3 OPs and prayed that OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.8000/- with interest and to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- for mental tension and harassment as also Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Defence of OPs:
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and vehemently contested the averments made by the complainant.
4. OP no.1 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections that the complaint was entirely misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in the eyes of law and therefore liable to be dismissed. The complaint was alleged to be an abuse of process of law. The complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and had not come to the Forum with clean hands as also had concealed material facts. The complaint had been filed by the complainant only to harass, humiliate and to extract undue monetary benefits from the answering OP. Complicated questions of facts and law were involved in this case, which required voluminous evidence, which was not possible in summary proceedings of the Forum. On merits, OP refuted the claim made by the complainant by stating that on 14.04.2018, complainant withdrew Rs.8,000/- by using her ATM Card bearing no.459203xxxx4075 at the ATM of OP no.2 between 10.00 a.m. to 10.10 a.m. The said transaction was successful and the JP Log produced by OP no.2 as evidence also proved this fact. OP no.1 denied any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on First Appeal No.753 of 2019 4 its part. Answering OP controverted the other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP no.2 in its separate written reply raised preliminary objections that complaint was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The complainant had concealed the material facts from the District Forum. She was not consumer of OP no.2 and therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was averred that on 14.04.2018, complainant used her ATM Card No.459203xxx75 and withdrew Rs.8000/-. The said transaction was successful and this fact was clear from a perusal of the JP Log report. OP no.2 denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Evidence of the parties and finding of the District Forum
6. The complainant tendered in evidence her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents i.e. copy of passbook Ex C-2, copy of entry of alleged withdrawal Ex.C-3, copy of complaint Ex.C-4, Legal notice Ex.C-5 and receipt thereof Ex.C-6, photocopy of ATM Ex.C-7 and Aadhar card Ex.C-8.
7. As against it, OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Simranjit Singh, Branch Manager Ex.OP-1/1, reply dated 15.05.2018 to complaint Ex.OP-1/2, copy of ATM alerts Ex.OP-1/3.
8. OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajinder Kumar Chahray, Branch Manager Ex.OP-2/1 & copy of message Ex.OP-2. First Appeal No.753 of 2019 5
9. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, complainant (now appellant) has preferred this appeal. Contentions of the parties
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record of the case.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that while dismissing the appellants complaint, the District Forum has failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record. The bank produced on record, one document showing that the said ATM card was swiped at 10:03:24, whereas the cash was taken at 12:12:21, meaning thereby that cash remained in ATM for two hours, which is not possible. Entry in the passbook was made on 19.04.2018 regarding the withdrawal of Rs.8000/-, allegedly on 14.04.2018. Even the appellant further received the message on 19.04.2018 regarding the said withdrawal, which further belied the case set up by the OP. He further contended that as per RBI guidelines neither any enquiry was conducted by OP no.1 nor OP no.1 made any effort to preserve the CCTV Footage on receipt of complaint from the complainant. The District Forum ignored the above said crucial facts and simply concluded that it is the appellant who withdrew the money. Averring on the similar lines as pleaded in the appeal, First Appeal No.753 of 2019 6 learned counsel for appellant has prayed for setting aside the order of the District Forum and for acceptance of the appeal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 argued that on 14.04.2018, complainant withdrew Rs.8,000/- by using her ATM Card bearing no.459203xxxx4075 at the ATM of OP no.2 between 10.00 a.m. to 10.10 a.m. and the said transaction was successful and no excess cash was found on that day. Moreover, JP Log produced by OP no.2 also proved this fact. He further contended that the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint after going through the evidence and record of the case and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Learned counsel for OP no.2 submitted that complainant used her ATM on 14.04.2018 at the ATM of OP no.2 bank at Kotkapura between 10.00 AM to 10.30 AM and withdrew Rs.8000/-, which was a successful transaction, which is clear from Ex.OP-2/2 dated 04.09.2019 on the record. The entry regarding withdrawal of Rs.8000/- on dated 14.04.2018 was updated in passbook on dated 19.04.2018, which is technical issue relating to IT. The appellant/complainant cannot get the benefit of Rs.8000/- twice for some technical error, which requires lot of evidence and the same cannot be decided in summary manner. Learned counsel for OP no.1 relied upon judgment of Honble National Commission in case titled as Sandeep Vs. Branch Manager, PNB & another Revision Petition No.2298 of 2013, decided on 24.01.2020, First Appeal No.753 of 2019 7 wherein while dismissing the revision petition it has been held as under: It is well evinced that the ATM was functional. Rs.15,000/- was withdrawn by using the complainants debit/ATM card. The transaction was successful; response code 000, which indicates a successful transaction, was generated. Debit of Rs.15,000/- was made in the complainants account. No extra undispensed money was found in the ATM. The responsibility of keeping his debit/ATM card, safe, as well as keeping his PIN (personal identification number) confidential, was on the complainant. The onus of proving his allegation was on the complainant, which onus he failed to discharge. The revision petition filed by the complainant/petitioner was dismissed by the Honble National Commission. He further relied upon another judgment of the Honble National Commission titled as State Bank of India Vs. K.K. Bhalla 2011(3) CLT-256, wherein in it has been held that Merely because the CCTV was not working on those dates and its footage was thus not available does not mean that the money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using the ATM card and the PIN number. In view of the elaborate procedure evolved by the Petitioner-bank to ensure that without the ATM card and the knowledge of the PIN number, it is not possible First Appeal No.753 of 2019 8 for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorized person from an ATM, it is difficult to accept that some bank staff was involved in it. Order of the Fora below allowing the complaint of respondent is liable to be set aside. On the strength of the afore submissions learned counsel for respondent no.2 prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Consideration of contentions:
14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the parties and have also perused the record of the case carefully.
15. It is the admitted position that the complainant has an account with OP no.1 bank. The submission raised on behalf of the appellant to disregard the stand of the OPs with regard to the withdrawal of Rs.8000/- by the appellant on 14.04.2018 on the ground that the entry with regard to such withdrawal was made only on 19.04.2018 in the passbook of the appellant, need to be considered only to be rejected. A perusal of Ex.C-3, which is the passbook issued by the OP bank in which the alleged transaction entry, clearly shows that the withdrawal of Rs.8000/- was infact made on 14.04.2018 and only updation of such withdrawal transaction in the appellants passbook was shown on 19.04.2018. This was a follow up of the transaction made by the appellant on 14.04.2018 and appellant should not derive any benefit from the First Appeal No.753 of 2019 9 same. On the same analogy, the argument of counsel for appellant with regard to the recorded time of 12:12:21 for the transaction at 10:10 must also fail.
16. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that OP no.1 bank had not preserved the CCTV Footage on receipt of complaint also deserves rejection. To decide this point, we have perused the complaint dated 23.04.2018, Ex.C-4 wherein she has not requested for CCTV Footage. Moreover, this issue is no more res integra as the Honble National Commission in case State Bank of India Vs. K.K. Bhalla (Supra) has already held that non- availability of CCTV Footage does not mean that the money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using the ATM card and the PIN number. We find no force in this contention of appellant and the same is hereby rejected.
17. The last contention urged by the learned counsel for appellant that OP no.1 has not conducted any enquiry on receipt of her complaint also merits rejection as Ex.OP-1/2 reveals that OP no.1 bank did enquire into the matter and also sent a response to the complainant, vide Ex.OP-1/2 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that Response/reply received from the ATM switch centre is enclosed here with for your reference.
18. In view of the above, no error factual or legal is found in the impugned order warranting any interference by this Commission. First Appeal No.753 of 2019 10 Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed and order of the District Forum is upheld.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of work and less staff. (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) PRESIDING MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER July 21, 2020. (MM)
Alert