BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 25th day of November, 2005
CD No. 12/2005
Shaik Jawad Ahmed, S/o. Noor Ahmed, Working as Police Constable,
F Company, Gudi Atmakur, Adilabad.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Manager, ATM Machine,
Near Kondareddi Bourjji, Kurnool.
2. The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad,
Dichally Branch, Nizambad Dist.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 21.11.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri C.V. Ram Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri A.Hari Haranadha Sarma Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and Sri S.Viswanatha Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of CP Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund Rs.3,900/- and Rs.94/- deducted as commission with 18% interest per annum from 1.9.2004 till realization, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is an account holder bearing no. 01190012506 in opposite party No.2 Bank at Dichpally in Nizamabad District and also holding an ATM card bearing No. 5044352038900012383. On 1.9.2004 the complainant inserted his ATM card in opposite party No.2 ATM machine at Kurnool located near Konda Reddy Burruj for with drawal of Rs.3,900/- but the complainant did not receive the said amount even after trying for another two times and the security guard also tried to help the complainant but invain on returning to Dichpally the complainant has written letters to opposite party No.1 and 2 stating that he has not received any amount from ATM machine, Kurnool, even after receipt of said letters the opposite party No.1 and 2 did not reply. The complainant from his bank statement came to know that Rs.3,900/- and Rs.74/- was deducted from his account and the said amount is not credited to his account till today. Hence the said lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to file this complaint seeking redressal in this Forum.
3. The complainant in support of his case filed the following documents Viz (1) Saving Bank pass book of the complainant bearing No.01190012506, debiting entry of Rs.3,900/+50+8+8+50 on 1.9.2004 and (2) crediting entry of Rs.3,900/- to the complainant’s account on 10.3.2005, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 and A.2 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared before this Forum and contested the case by filing separate written versions.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 alleges the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It alleges that there was no tie up between opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 on 1.9.2004, when the complainant failed to get money from the said ATM machine. ATM facility is a convenience taking aid of electronic and computer devises support and such lapses which are beyond the human control rarely crept in and there is neither failure of human element nor there is failure of mechanical device and the total control monitoring ATM machines rests with ATM cell situated at Hyderabad. The correspondence with Head Office revealed that complainant was declined payment for the following reasons codes (1) code 91- destination not available (2) code 57 – record not supported (3) code 51 – Un authorized usage and there was no payment and no amount was reimbursed by the Card Holders bank. So there is no amount lying with ATM cell. More over the complainant violated the conditions No.5 of debit card facility which says that minimum balance should be maintained by the Debit card holder, which the complainant has not maintained and the bank is protected in view of condition No.22 which says that Banks shall not be responsible for any loss or damage which is beyond the control of bank such as riots strikes, Civil disobedience, failure of system/ communication setup etc,. The said transaction was declined by ATM and opposite party No.2 has not reimbursed the said amount to this Bank. Hence, there is no claim for the complainant against opposite party No.1 and seeks for the dismissal of complaint against opposite party No.1.
6. The written version of opposite party No.2 admits the complainant having an account No. 01190012506 in their bank and there is a debit entry of Rs.3,900/- to the account of the complainant, after the with drawal made by the complainant at Kurnool. After receiving letter from the complainant the opposite party No.2 contacted the opposite party No.1’s switch center which informed that the transaction made by the complainant was not successful and the complainant has not received any amount from the ATM center of opposite party No.1 at Kurnool, hence there is defect in the ATM machine of opposite party No.1. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 credited to the account of the complainant Rs.3,900/- and all service charges debited are credited to the Head Office of opposite party No.1, therefore opposite party No.1 is only liable. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.2 and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of their case the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed eighteen documents and they are marked as Ex B.1 to B.18 for their appreciation in this case, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and No.2 in support of their case.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
9. It is a case of the complainant that the service of credit card transaction for RS.3,900/- was declined against his credit card by opposite party No.1 ATM machine on 1.9.2004, when the complainant was in Kurnool, inspite of several attempts the transaction was not successful. While such is so, the opposite party No.2 credit card holder’s bank from the complainant’s account debited Rs.3,900/-, Rs.50/- and Rs.8/- for the said transaction on 1.9.2004. When the complainant came to know that Rs.3,900/- has been debited from his account for the failed transaction, informed the opposite party No.2 through his letter about failed transaction and requested to debit the said amount. But the opposite party No.2 alleges that it was for the fault of opposite party No.1 ATM machine the transaction was failed and there is no deficiency on their part. On the contrary the opposite party No.1 alleges there is no valid agreement between opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 on the date of said transaction and on the other side alleges it is for the complainant to maintain minimum balance in his account for availing credit card facility. But the opposite party No.2 submitted that there is valid agreement between opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 and brought on record Ex. B3 Memorandum of Uderstandings between State Bank of India and Andhra Bank with effect from 12.7.2004, from the said exhibit it is proved that there is valid agreement between opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 and the said transaction of the complainant is after the said agreement. The opposite party No.1 and 2 except exchanging allegation between them, appears that they are not bothered for the declined transaction of complainant.
10. There is no denial from the opposite parties 1 and 2 about the fact that the complainant who had transactions in Kurnool was declined a transaction of Rs.3,900/- which itself is sufficient ground to prove deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 in not allowing the said transaction. When the transaction itself was failed the opposite party No.2 are at deficiency of service in debiting the said transaction amount of Rs.3,900/- from the complainant’s account for the said failed transaction, and the opposite party No.2 admitting their deficiency in service, credited the said amount of Rs.3,900/- on 10.3.2005 after a lapse of 6 months, which is sufficient for the complainant to suffer immense embarrassment and mental tension. The opposite party No.1 submitted that such lapses are beyond the human control and are rarely crept, but all this appears to be a result of certain in built system parameters which controls the credit card transaction on any given day. This arrangement is the internal arrangement between opposite parties 1 and 2 due to which the complainant (consumer) cannot be put to inconvenience and mental agony.
11. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following citations. (1) Tamil Nadu State Commission, between R.M Subramaniam Vs Director, All India Radio and ors reported in III (2005) CPJ pg 105, it was alleged that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties, but it was held that when opposite parties have panel of agents, through whom they negotiate and commission is paid to agents the opposite parties are jointly liable, this case is of little relevancy for appreciation in this present case and (2) Delhi State Commission between Standard Chartered Bank Vs Raj Mohan, reported in, III (2005) CPJ Pg 280, where it was held that when number of transactions or value on a card on any given day restricted due to in built system, consumer cannot be put to jeopardy due to internal arrangements of Bank, the opposite parties is liable to pay compensation. In the case on hand the complainant was declined transaction by opposite party No.1 bank even when the said bank was having agreement with the card holder’s bank, to provide its services. Hence, there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 bank ATM. The opposite party No.2 bank for debiting the failed transaction amount and recrediting the said amount after lapse of 6 months which itself shows there is deficiency of service on their part.
12. To sum up, the discussions made above and following the afore mentioned citations, it remains established that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are at deficiency of service for declining transaction and for debiting and recrediting the failed transaction amount in to the complainant’s account.
13. Now the question is to what quantum of amount the complainant is remaining entitled towards compensation as the first relief is satisfied. The opposite party No.2 crediting the failed transaction amount to the complainant’s account after the complaint is filed before this Forum i.e after a lapse of 6 months. Hence the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay compensation. The opposite party No. 1 is also liable for declining transaction at its ATM center. Thus, the said above lapsive conduct of opposite parties 1 and 2 is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant (consumer) and there by the grievances of the complainant are covered under the supra stated decisions holding the opposite parties liability to pay compensation.
14. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1,000/- and costs of Rs.500- for declining transaction at its ATM center and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for wrong debiting and recrediting the said amount to the complainant’s account after 6 months and Rs.500/- as costs. The opposite parties are directed to pay the supra awarded amount within a month of receipt of this order in default the opposite parties are liable to pay the award with interest of 12% per annum from the date of default till realization,
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the open court this the 25th day of November, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Saving Bank Pass book of the complainant bearing No. 01190012506,
debiting entry of Rs.3,900/+50+8+50 on 1.9.2004.
Ex A.2 Crediting entry of Rs.3,900/- to the complainant’s account on 10.3.05.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Letter, dt 28.2.2005 addressed by opposite party No.1.
Ex B.2 Letter, dt 28.2.2005 of Andhra Bank, Kurnool.
Ex B.3 Memorandum of Understanding between State Bank of India and
Andhra Bank.
Ex B.4 ATM Card.
Ex B.5 Attested copy of letter dt 14.10.2004 of opposite party No.2 addressed
to opposite party No.1.
Ex B.6 Attested copy of letter dt 21.2.2005 of opposite party No.2 addressed
to opposite party No.1.
Ex B.7 Attested copy of letter dt 23.2.2005 reply of opposite party No.2.
Ex B.8 Attested copy letter dt 16.10.2004 Andhra Bank, Main Branch Kurnool
to B.M. SB of Hyderabad, Nizamabad Dist.
Ex B.9 Attested copy of letter, Dt 16.10.2004 from P. Venkata Rao, Sr Br.
Manager to B.M, SB of Hyderabad.
Ex B.10 Attested copy of letter dt 24.4.2005 of State Bank of Hyderabad.
Ex B.11 Attested copy of letter dt 25.2.2005 of SB of Hyderabad.
Ex B.12 Attested copy of letter dt 28.2.2005 by opposite party No.2 to Dy.
General Manager, SB of Hyderabad, Mumbai.
Ex B.13 Attested copy of letter dt 12.10.2004 Account No.01190012506.
Ex B.14 Attested copy of DD Dt. 12.10.2004 for Rs.58,000/-.
Ex B.15 Attested copy of letter, dt 28.2.2005 of SB of Hyderabad.
Ex B.16 Statemet of Account from 1.9.2004 to 5.9.2005 of SB of Hyderabad.
Ex B.17 Attested copy of letter addressed to complainant by opposite party
No.2 dt 10.3.2005.
Ex B.18 Envelope cover send by opposite party No.2 addressed to complainant.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri C.V. Ram Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. S. Viswanatha Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
