CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.71/2019

DATED ON THIS THE 19^th June, 2020

      Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.           

                                        B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

                        3) Smt.Renukamba.C.

                                                B.A., LL.B., - MEMBER

Sr Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

MMember

1. The Complainant party in person, has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the CPAct 1986 against the opposite party bank, alleging deficiency in service and seeking refund of Rs. 20,000/- with damages and other reliefs.

2. The complainant submits that, she had attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from ATM of opposite party bank on 05.07.2018 at 4.32 pm. Upon entering the pin she heard sound from the ATM without receiving any money. As such, she decided to with draw the money from another machine and withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,000/- twice and handed over the cash to a stranger accompanied her. She submitted that, there was a balance of Rs. 1,14,717.11 in her account and after withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- the balance was  Rs 94,717.11. Once again she withdrew another sum of Rs. 10,000/- and took the mini statement which revealed that, there was a debit of Rs. 30,000/- and the balance in the account was Rs. 64,717/-. Disappointed with the same, she made a complaint with the opposite party bank who inturn assured to make an enquiry and to report the same to her. However on receipt of an unsatisfactory reply from opposite party bank, alleged deficiency in service by the bank and filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3. The opposite party bank represented through their counsel filed their version and denied the allegation as false and frivolous. Further the opposite party submitted that, the complainant had availed the assistance of a stranger accompanied with her and there was nobody inside the ATM counter as such alleged that something would have transpired between the complainant and the stranger. The opposite party bank had shown the CC TV footage to the complainant and cleared her doubt to prove there is no liability by them. Further, soon as they received the complaint from the complainant the same have been thoroughly inspected and verified all the records by their team which revealed that the transaction was successful. Thus they denied the allegation as false frivolous and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. Both parties filed their examination in chief by way of affidavit with several documents marked as exhibits. Written arguments filed by both parties. Heard the oral arguments of the complainant and the counsel for opposite party. Perused the material on record and posted the matter for orders.

5. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite party and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs sought?

2. What order?

6.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1:- In the Negative

      Point No.2:- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.        Point No.1:- The complainant alleged that, she had received Rs. 30,000/- only through ATM, on 05.07.2018, but unfortunately, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been debited to her account. As such alleged deficiency in service by the opposite party bank and sought for the reliefs by relaying on her pass book entries. On perusal of the entries in the pass book furnished by the complainant, the balance amount in her account prior to withdrawal was Rs. 1,14,717-11 as on 05.07.2018. After withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- twice and Rs. 30,000/- once the balance has been reduced to Rs. 64.717-11 which is alleged as deficiency in service by opposite party bank, as she has not received Rs.30,000/- from the ATM

8. The counsel for opposite party bank contended that, the bank statement relating to the complainant account bearing no 151010100106719 for the period 01.07.2018 to 10.07.2018 revealed that, there was a sum of Rs. 1,14,717.11 balance amount in complainant account prior to withdrawal and after withdrawal of a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- the balance remained in the account was reduced to Rs. 64,717.11. Further relying on three transaction report contended that a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been withdrawn on 05.07.2018. The transaction vide record no. 5032 and 5033 clearly showed that there was withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/-twice  and record no 5035 showed withdrawals of Rs. 30,000/- by the complainant through ATM on 05.07.2018. Thereby denied the allegations as false and prayed for dismissal of complainant.

9.  Thus by considering the material evidence on records and arguments addressed by both parties, this Forum opined that, the transaction was successful and the complainant had withdrawn a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her account on 05.07.2018 through ATM. Thereby the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service by the opposite party bank. Therefore, we answer the point No.1 in the negative.

10. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, the complaint filed by Smt. Sujatha Ankashetty deserves to be dismissed, Hence the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is dismissed   
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the    19^th June, 2020)