KERALASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD,U, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 8/07 JUDGMENT DATED 5/2/09 PRESENT:- SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Syndicate Bank, Represented by the General Manager, Head Office, Manipal, Karnataka. : APPELLANTS 2. The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Kollam. (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura & others) Vs A.Shamsudeen, S/o.Abdul Razak, aged 67, : RESPONDENT Haseena manzil, M.G.Street, Thamarakkulam, Kollam JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kollam in OP No.421/04 dated 30/11/2006.
2. The brief of the case is that the complainant filed a claim alleging that he is maintaining a Saving Bank Account and has availed ATM facility. The balance outstanding in the account as on 18/8/2004 was Rs.57,241.97. He had withdrawn the amount as follows. 1. on 21/8/2004 - Rs.2,000/- 2. On 26/8/2004 - Rs.5,000/- 3. On 31/8/2004 - Rs.5,000/- 4. On 2/9/2004 - Rs.15,000/- 3. But on 31/8/2004 though the complainant wanted to withdrawn Rs.15,000/- he could only get Rs.5,000/-. On 1/9/2004 the complainant withdrawn Rs.15,000/- and the balance as on 2/9/2004 after withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- would have been Rs.30,241.97/-. But the balance shown was Rs.25,241,97/- In the passbook the balance was shown as 15,241.97/-, in which entries are not correct. The complainant sought for refund of the amount. The complainant had to sustain mental agony and claims compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and hardship. 4. The opposite party filed written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable . The ATM was installed only to avoid delay in dealing with the bank and the customer need not go inside the bank branch for withdrawal of amounts. The ATM and data basis depends upon the availability of link between two computers, when connectivity is available with data base it is known as “as line” transaction, in the absence of direct link with data base, ATM functions with limited functionality’s and is known as “off line” transaction. The final balance available in the date base are updated everyday to the ATM switch are used after completion of day and operation. The balance so updated to the ATM switch used for the purpose of off line transaction. In this case 15 transactions are done by the complainant between 31/8/2004 till 2/9/2004. 5. From the part of the complainant Ext.P1 to P7 were marked and PW1 were examined as a witness. For the opposite side Ext.D1 to D7 were marked and examined DW1 and DW2 as witnesses. 6. The Forum below answered all the questions and passed order. The Forum below directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and material loss coupled with Rs.1,000/- as cost. 7. The appellants preferred this appeal from this impugned order passed by the Forum below. This appeal came before this Commission for final hearing. Heard both sides. The Forum below correctly answered all the points araised in this case. This Commission seen that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. it is clearly proved through Ext.P2 series. The complainant who alleged to have a difference of Rs.15,000/- due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by the opposite party, ie, Bank. The appellant is not having any case that the complainant who falsely or illegally with drawn the above said amount. Ext.P2 series is the evidence corroborating the case of the complainant. Exts.P3, P4 and p5 notices issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.D4 is the written notice issued to the complainant by the opposite party. In this notice the opposite party admitted that there was an error in the ATM system and according to them the Ext.P1 is the correct data. DW2 is the expert from the part of the opposite party is speaking that there was an error in the ATM system. It is clearly showing that the ATM system is not the first and final word. This is nothing but an electronic system which is functioning accordance with the programme provided by the computer software experts. There is no doubt that the Information and Communication System is a gateway to the Communication System. But the all devices and systems are having its own defect and limitation. In this circumstances it is not fair to treat the ATM as proof. The manual and physical functional system wanted to be retained as alternative to avoid errors. Nobody taken the computer as a human brain. It is only a modern electronic system. There is no meaning to blindly believe the ATM is error free. 8. In this case both counsels vehemently argued on behalf of their respective parties. The respondent/complainant who was inserting his ATM card in to the ATM twice with in shortest period. But no cash was received from the ATM. The receipts were issued to him. In the receipts the withdrawal amount were entered. But as early as possible the respondent/ complainant rushed to the appellant Bank and lodged his complaint. The appellant/Bank is maintaining the manual account and they admitted that the ATM was having some problems at that time. The appellant bank treated electronic receipts as a physical withdrawal document of money in their manual account book with knowingly that this was a error in ATM. It is incorrect and illegal . The respondent/complainant is a consumer of the appellant bank. It is their primary duty to provide service and relief to him in connection with the defect of their ATM. Nevertheless the appellant bank adopted a negative attitude and unfair trade practice towards the respondent/complainant. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is not legally sustainable. The order passed by the forum below is in accordance with law and evidence. No error or illegality is seen in the order passed by the Forum below. There is no evidence adduced by the respondent the detail of damages suffered by him due to the above said incident. It shown that the amount of compensation is little high. In this circumstance this Commission is modifying the order passed by the forum below as follows. This appeal is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant along with 12% interest from the date of complaint and the impugned order passed by the forum is set aside. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.250/- as cost to the complainant. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective cost. These points are answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Pk.
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
