Date of filing : 03-06-2015
Date of order : 19-09-2018
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.136/2015
Dated this, the 19th day of September 2018
PRESENT:
SRI.ROY PAUL : PRESIDENT
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
Amitha,
W/o. Jayaram : Complainant
R/at . Thanathingal . House,
Kannam vayal,Pakkam(P.O) Pallikare (Via)
The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank , Periya Branch, P.O :Opposite Parties
(Adv:Sadananda Kamath.K)
The Branch Manager
SBT Hosdurg Branch.
(Adv:K. Janardhanan)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
The brief case of the complaint is that on 03/02/2015 she had tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10, 000/- for meeting an urgent financial necessity from this opposite party No 1’s ATM counters. But amount was not received by the complainant even though she waited for 5 minutes in the counter. The complainant’s husband maintained account with opposite party No 2. But an amount of Rs 10,000/- was debited from the account of the complainants husband. The complainant on the same day gone to opposite party No 1 bank and gave complaint orally. On enquiry with opposite party No 2 the attitude of opposite party No 2 was inhumane and humiliating. The opposite parties failed to provide proper service to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Opposite parties appeared and filed version. As per opposite party No 1, the established and accepted Banking rules and procedure the ATM card holder should not transfer or hand over his ATM to any other person. Opposite party No 1 further contended that neither the complainant nor her husband is an account holder of opposite party No 1 Bank and not hired any service. Opposite Party No 1 is an unnecessary party to the proceedings.
Opposite party No 2 contended that there is no merit in the petition nobody made a complaint about the non receipt of Rs. 10,000/- . It must be given within 30 days from the non receipt of amount without any written complaint, opposite party No 2 cannot take up the issue with Canara Bank to refund the amount. Therefore the opposite party No 2 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and she was examined as Pw1. Ext A1 marked on her side. Opposite party No 1 and No 2 also filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and Ext B1 marked on their side . Evidence analysed and heard both sides.
The case of the complainant is that she did not receive Rs.10,000/- from this ATM counter of opposite party No 1 and her husband is the customer of opposite party No 2. The alleged transactions as on 03/02/15 and on the same day she had withdrawn another Rs 10,000/- from the HDFC ATM counter. But later came to know the amount which she tried to withdraw from opposite party No 1’s ATM counter was debited from her husband’s account as per the message systems. On the same day the complainant went to opposite party No 1 bank and gave oral complaint. Even though they promised to do the needful, opposite party No 1 not done anything. Whereas when the complainant approached opposite party No 2, they humiliated and insulted the complainant.
In this case ExtA1is a very crucial document and on scrutiny it is seen that the complainant raised claim on 29/3/15 about the non-receipt of Rs.10,000/- to this opposite party No 2 and its acknowledgment of complaint is also received by the complainant. In the acknowledgement it is crystal clear that the opposite party No 2 had sufficient opportunity to settle the disputed ATM transaction without being dragged the customer for an unnecessary litigation. Instead of that they vehemently contended that the complainant not approached them or filed any complaint about the loss of money. It is the bounden duty on the side of the opposite party No2 preserve the C.C TV footage of the alleged ATM transactions for bringing out the truth. As per the guidelines Reserve Bank of Indian the preservation of C.C TV footage is the only available defense in the similar cases. The complainant sustained damages due to the deficiency in service from opposite party No 2. We are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for a relief from us. Opposite party No 1 is exonerated since opposite party No 2 is the bank were in the complainant husband is having an account.
In the result this complaint is allowed and opposite party No 2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.10, 000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) with cost of Rs 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only). Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1.ATM Transaction Monitor Details
B1.Attested true copy of the Statement of Account No.6781110868 of Jayaram Narayanan Kannamvayal
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
