BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.188  OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.4 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM RANGA REDDY

Between:

Andhra Bank,
LB Nagar Branch, Near Kamineni Hospital
Hyderabad rep. by its Branch Manager

                                                        Appellant/opposite party No.1

                A N D

1.     Sri P.Upendra Chary S/o late Sri Buchchaih
        Aged about 43 years, Occ: Carpenter,
        D.No.3-7-85, Main Road, Mansoorabad
        L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad-68

                                                        Respondent/complainant

2.     ICICI Bank,
Chaitanyapuri Dilsukhnagar
Hyderabad, rep. by the Manager
                                                Respondent/opposite partyno.1

Counsel for the Appellants             M/s S.Mujib Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent           M/s G.V.Rayudu (R1)

                                                M/s A.Jaya Raju (R2)

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/C PRESIDENT

                                                        &

S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                        FRIDAY THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER

                                   TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c President)

                                        ***
1.             The opposite party no.2 is the appellant.  The respondent no.1 is having savings bank account No.1467810100002449  with the respondent no.2 as also he was provided with  ATM card.  On 11.8.2009 when the respondent no.1 attempted to withdraw the amount of `15,000/- from the ATM, it had shown that he had already withdrawn the amount of `15,000/- and he complained about the same to the appellant.   No action was taken by the appellant in the matter.  The respondent no.1 got issued notice dated 8.10.2009 to the appellant and the respondent no.2 and filed the complaint before the District Forum.

2.             The appellant resisted the case contending that the respondent no.1 is the SB Account holder of the appellant bank with ATM Card facility.  On 11.8.2009 the respondent no.1 instructed for withdrawal of `15,000/- at 20.07 WDL and cash was taken at 20:07:40 and 20:40:41.   The appellant had issued statement with regard to the transaction.  The statement clearly shows that the respondent no.1 had taken the amount as such there is no fault on the par to  the appellant and also the respondent tno.2.

3.             The respondent no.2 filed counter contending that the ATMs are highly computerized and the mistakes are remote and there was no intimation from the concerned office who maintains day to day transactions and the statements of the surplus amount that is available to the credit of particular ATM machine.  The respondent no.2 received the complaint from the respondent no.1 on 19.8.2009 and immediately the respondent no.2 contacted the ATM authorities who are maintaining the ATM machine for verification of the complaint whether the transaction of the respondent no.1 took place properly or any error had occurred in the machine and also to find out whether the amount claimed by the  respondent no.1 is surplus with the bank.  The respondent no.2 verified thoroughly and gave the information that the transaction took place properly and the matter was informed and explained to the respondent no.1. 

4.             The respondent no.1 filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A6.   The Branch Manager of the appellant and the Branch Operations Manager of the respondent no.2 filed their respective affidavits and the documents, Exs.B1 to B3.

5.             The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellant and the respondent no.2 were negligent in the matter of transaction made by the first respondent on 11.08.2009 and it held the appellant liable to pay a sum of `15,000/- and the respondent no.2-bank for an amount of `5,000/-.

6.             Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party no.1 has filed appeal contending that the first respondent used the ATM machine of the respondent no.2-bank and not that of the appellant-bank and that the wrong entry made if any in the account of the first respondent bank, it was on account of the negligence of the respondent no.2 in maintaining the ATM machine.

7.             The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of law or facts?

8.             There is no dispute of the fact that the first respondent is the account holder of the appellant-bank with his savings bank account number No.1467810100002449  and he was provided with ATM facility to his account as also the appellant-bank issued ATM card to the respondent no.1. .It is also not denied that the first respondent on 11.08.2009 had used his ATM card at the ATM machine of the respondent no.2-bank at Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad and he could not withdraw the amount of Rs.15,000/- Though the transaction slip emerged from the ATM machine showing successful completion of the transaction, the first respondent had stated that he had not received the cash from the machine.

9.             Initially, both the appellant and the respondent no.2-bank contested the claim on the premise that there was no negligence on their part , subsequently, the manager of the second respondent bank in her affidavit has stated that the transaction was reversed on 03.06.2010.  The District Forum rightly found fault with both the appellant and the respondent no.2-bank and it however, awarded an amount of `15,000/- against the appellant while directing the respondent no.2-bank to pay an amount of `5,000/- and the discrepancy is the amount awarded against the appellant and the respondent no.2 is made platform for filing the appeal  by opposite party no.1-bank on the premise that it is the respondent non.2 bank and its ATM machine which has contributed to the entire grievance of the first respondent . The District Forum in paragraph 9 of its order observed :

“The branch manager of the opposite party no,1 bank also filed his evidence affidavit to that effect.  Surprisingly, the Branch Manager (Operations) of opposite party no.2 bank field her evidenced affidavit stating that after thorough verification they received information from the concerned department that the transaction has been reversed on 03.06.2010.  it shows that the second opposite party filed the counter in a negligent manner without verifying the facts.  Ex.B1 is the statement of transactions made with ATM center of second opposite party bank on 11.08.2009.  It shows that an amount of Rs.15,000/=- was taken.  The evidence affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 bank falsifies the entries in Ex.B1.  It is the duty of the second opposite party bank to keep their ATM machine in good condition.  At least, it is duty of opposite partyno.2 Bank to intimate the complainant about the non-drawl of cash and the mechanical defect in their machine when he lodged a complaint with their Bank on 19.08.2009 which is marked as Ex.A1.  It is also evident that the complainant got issued a legal notice to both the opposite parties on 8.10.2009 under Ex.A3 and they also received the same under Ex.A4 acknowledgements.  The second opposite party did not choose to give any reply notice.  Ex.B3 is SR information furnished by  opposite party no.2 Bank.  It shows that the transaction has been reversed to the account of the complainant on 03.06.2010.  But Ex.A6 passbook does not disclose such credit entry in the account of the complainant.  At least, opposite party no.1 bank did not place any documentary evidence to show the date of the credit entry in the SB Account of the complainant.   

10.            The entry made in the account of the first respondent without verifying as to whether the transaction conducted by the first respondent on 11.08.2009 at the ATM machine of the respondent no.2-bank would certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. However, liability of the appellant  in this regard is of lesser degree compared to  that of the respondent no,2-bank as the second respondent’s  negligence in maintaining the ATM machine was the source and root cause of the grievance of the first respondent.

11.            The amount awarded as compensation should commensurate to the hardship and loss caused to the first respondent as also it should in commensurate to the degree of negligence on each of the appellant and the respondent no,2-bank which in our view is not equal.  The compensation ought to have been directed to be paid by them in the ratio of 3:1, i.e. `5,000/- by the appellant and `15,000/- by the respondent no.2-bank.

12.            In the result the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum by directing the appellant/opposite party no.1 to pay `5,000/- and the respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 is directed to pay `15,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 11.08.2009 till payment together with costs of `2,500/-.  Time for compliance four weeks. 

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                        I/c PRESIDENT

                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER

                                                                        Dt.29.11.2013

కె.ఎం.కె.*