BEFORE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No. 573 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.4 OF 2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM RANGA REDDY

Between

P.Upendra Chary S/o Buchaiah
aged about 40 yrs, Occ: Carpenter
R/o 3-7-85, Main Road
Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar
Hyderabad-68

Appellant/complainant

        A N D

1.   B.Rajsekhar
Manager
Andhra Bank, LB Nagar Branch
Near Kamineni Hospital
Hyderabad

2.   Manager
ICICI Bank, Chaitanyapuri
Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad

                                                        Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant              M/s G.Vasantha Rayudu

Counsel for the Respondent           M/s Kancherla Raja
                                               

 QUORUM:      

                            SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                        &

                             SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

                 MONDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

                                            TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

       Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
           ***

The appellant  filed complaint against the ICIC Bank and Andhra Bank  seeking direction to them to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- with interest @12% p.a. and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- towards costs.

The first appellant  is  a customer of the first respondent-bank  with saving bank account bearing number 146810100002449  and he has also availed ATM facility with the ATM card bearing number 4688171468006754. On 11.08.2009 the appellant made transaction through the ATM of the second respondent bank and the transaction did not draw any amount from the ATM. The appellant complained to the first respondent-bank  which requested him to lodge complaint in writing with the second respondent-bank and accordingly the appellant lodged complaint no.70619 with the second  respondent-bank stating that a sum of Rs.15,000/- shown as withdrawn from his account with the first respondent-bank   though the transaction through the ATM was not materiliased. The appellant got issued notice dated 8.10.2009

The first respondent –bank resisted the claim on the premise that on 11.08.2009, the appellant instructed the first respondent-bank  for withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- through the ATM of the second  respondent-bank  and cash was taken as also the transaction was concluded. The v first respondent-bank   issued statement with regard to the transaction and there was no fault on the part of the first respondent-bank .

The second respondent contended that the as per the statement of account  issued by the first respondent-bank , the cash was taken by the appellant on 11.08.2009. The ATMS is highly computerized and there is no intimation from the officer concerned in the case of the appellant that surplus amount was availableto the credit of the particular ATM. After receiving complaint on 19.08.2009 from the appellant the second respondent-bank  contacted the authorities who are maintaining the ATM for verification of the complaint whether the transaction took place in proper manner or an error occurred and whether the amount claimed by the appellant found to be surplus with the ATM on the relevant day. The transaction on the relevant day was completed and the cash was received by the appellant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the second  respondent-bank.

The appellant, in support of his claim filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A6. The respondents no.1 and 2, ExB1 to B3 had been marked.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the transaction through ATM on 11.08.2009 was successful and the ATM is highly sophisticated machine which cannot be meddled with by any person. The District Forum opined that if the transaction is not successful, the same would be mentioned in the transaction slip and excess amount would be found with the ATM on that particular day.

The counsel for the second respondent has filed written arguments.

The points for consideration are:

i)             Whether the respondents are liable to pay the amount of Rs.15,000/- to the first appellant ?

ii)           To what relief?

POINT NO.1:    The appellant is  an account holder of the first  respondent-bank with his account bearing number 146810100002449  and he has also availed ATM facility with the ATM card bearing number 4688171468006754. The appellant claims for a sum of Rs.15,000/- on the premise that on 11.08.2009 the ATM transaction attempted by him was not successful and the amount was debited to his account. The respondents contended that the transaction was successful and the appellant had received the amount through the ATM.

        The second respondent in his affidavit has stated that the enquiry conducted by them revealed that cash was not dispensed with and the wrong entry in the records was reversed to the S.B.Account of the appellant on 3.06.2010, i.e., subsequent to the date of filing of the complaint. The second respondent advised the appellant to collect EJ report . The second respondent advised the appellant to get updated his pass book and get it verified whether the amount was reversed or not .

        The SR statement filed by the second respondent shows that the amount of Rs.15,000/-pertaining to the ATM transaction on 11.08.2009 was reversed to the S.B.Account of the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the appellant or the first respondent has not filed the pass book or the statement of account to show that the amount was not reversed. According to the learned counsel, the statement of account of the appellant on 3.06.2010 would dispel doubt as to reversal of the amount to the account of the appellant.

        It has become clear that the transaction dated 11.08.2009 made by the appellant through the ATM of the second respondent bank was not successful. The second respondent has submitted that as the transaction was not successful, the amount of Rs.15,000/- was reversed to the S.B Account of the appellant and the appellant and the first  respondent failed to rebut the reversal of the amount on 3.06.2010 to the account of the appellant.

        The appellant and the respondents have not been fair in putting forth their respective plea. The first respondent has stated that the ATM  transaction was successful and the amount was debited to the account of the appellant. The second respondent at the first instance has submitted that the ATM transaction was successful and the appellant had received cash through the ATM. The appellant has not filed his pass book with updated entries to show that the amount was not reversed on 3.06.2010 to his account. The first respondent has not filed the statement of account of the appellant to show that the amount was not reversed to the account of the appellant. The second respondent has not taken steps to produce the relevant documents from the possession of the first respondent- bank. In this fashion, each of the parties to the case have been unfair in the matter of filing pleadings and adducing evidence. As such we deem it a fit case to be remitted back to the District Forum for denova enquiry.

        In view of the rival contentions of the parties and for  the foregoing reasons, we deem it a fit case to give opportunity to both parties to proceed with their case and  accordingly remit back the matter to the District Forum to enable the parties to adduce evidence in support of the rival contentions.  The District Forum shall proceed in accordance with law.

        In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum. The complaint is remitted back to the District Forum with a direction to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the records. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 15.10.2012. The parties shall bear their own costs.

                             MEMBER

MEMBER           

                                                                Dt.24.09.2012

KMK*