By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Brief of the complaint is as follows: The petitioner is an account holder in 2nd opposite party's branch having SB Account No.14405. The 2nd opposite party has assured the petitioner that under core scheme of Federal Bank money transfer can be effected from anywhere in India into his account and can be withdrawn through ATM with in minutes. Since the petitioner's wife was suffering from illness he took her to Bangalore on 24.4.2006 for treatment. The petitioner was short of money he contacted his brother- in- law for money and he deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- in his account at Bangalore Gandhi Nagar branch of Federal Bank on 24.4.2006. On 28.4.2006 the petitioner tried to withdraw the amount through ATM in Banglore and found that the said amount has not credited in to his account. So he went to S. Bathery to raise money. On 2.5.2006 the petitioner directly approached the 2nd opposite party and requested to take steps to get the said amount into his account. At that time 2nd opposite party insulted the petitioner in the midst of other customers shouting that it was not his duty to do such things and if the petitioner had any grievances he may contact the head office directly. So he sent a lawyer notice on 3.5.2008 to opposite parties. After receiving lawyer notice opposite parties acted upon and the amount credited into his account. 2. The petitioner has suffered huge loss mental agony and sufferings from the act of the respondents. Opposite parties willfully neglected for not taking steps to rectify the mistake even after informing the same. That amounts to deficiency of service. So the petitioner is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner as damages and to grant cost of this petition. 3. Opposite parties filed version. In the version they stated that on 25.4.2006 one Toby George remitted a sum of Rs.5000/- at Bangalore Gandhi Nagar branch for crediting in the account No.14405 of the complainant. The said transaction was successful at Bangalore Gandhi Nagar Branch but the amount was not credited into the account of complainant. It was due to technical snags. AWB transactions are heavily dependant on the network connectivity between the branches and Head Office. Due to BSNL line problems, occasionally problems arise in transferring the funds through AWB. No mannual intervention is possible by the opposite parties. In view of the above, specific conditions were printed in the AWB applications itself ie. clause 3 reads as, Federal bank will not be responsible for the loss of any that may be caused by the malfunctioning or break down of the computer systems of Federal Bank computer network, telecommunication network or any other equipment used in the RTGS system etc. Hence bank has no liability in case of delay caused due to technical snags. They have denied all the averments in the complainant. If the complainant had contacted bank alternative arrangements would have been made by the Bank. The story naratted in the complaint is a concocted one made for the purpose of getting the sympathy of the Forum. The complainant informed the matter only on 4.5.2006 on the same day it was enquired with Bangalore Ghandhi Nagar Branch and amount was credited in his account. There was no intimation on 28.4.06 to 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party. The complainant did not approach 2nd opposite party. 4. In the absence of evidences to the effect the complainant would have not incurred any loss. There is no negligence/deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, the claim shall not be considered and the same is liable to be dismissed with the cost of opposite parties. 5. After perusing the complaint and version the following points are to be considered 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 2) Relief and cost? 6. Point No.1: To prove complainant's case he has filed proof affidavit. In the proof affidavit he was stated as stated in the complaint. He has also produced 9 documents. That are marked as Ext. A1 to Ext. A9. Ext. A1 is the leaf let issued by opposite parties inviting all to Federal bank ATM. In the leaf let there is a column which states as follows: F\nthÀ _m¦nKv -Xm¦-fpsS _m¦nwKv Bh-i-y-§Ä¡v Hcp {]tX-yI imJsb am{Xw B{i-bn-¡msX GsXmcp imJ-bn \n¶pT ]Ww ]n³hen-¡p-¶-Xn¶pw \nt£-]n-¡p-¶-Xn\pw Hcp imJ-bn \n¶pw asämcp imJ-bn-te¡v C³U-y-bn-sehnsSbpw shdpw ]¯v sk¡³Un-\p-Ån BcpsS A¡-uWnte-¡pw ]Ww amäp-¶-Xn-\pÅ kuI-c-yw Ext. A2 is the medical prescription issued to Mrs. Reji Antony on 28.4.2006 which shows that Mrs. Reji Antony was examined by Dr. Renji Issac Mathew, BSC, MBBS, SWETHA CLINIC, No.17, HMT Main road, Mathilkera, Bangalore on 28.4.06 and prescribed some medicines. Ext. A3 is the customers counterfoil. Which shows that on 25.4.2006 an amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited in the account No.14405 in the name of Sri. Antony, the complainant. Further reveal that an amount of Rs.55/- is collected as exchange charge. Ext. A4 is the balance enquiry print in respect of Account No.14405 for Branch 0690 by using ARD No.404834XX3039. According to it the balance in the account is Rs.746/-. Further it is seen that the print is issued from Federal bank, Madiwala, Bangalore on 28.4.2006 at 11.07 hrs. Ext. A5 is the statement of accounts from 1.4.2006 to 30.4.2006 in respect of Account No. 14405 in the name of the complainant. The statement shows that no transaction after 18.4.2006 and the balance on that day is Rs.746.00. Ext. A6 is taken by using Card No. 404834 XX3039. Ext. A7 is the copy of lawyer notice sent to opposite parties by the council of the the complainant with postal receipt. Ext. A8 is the acknowledgment cards of the registered letters. That shows that 2nd opposite party accepted the lawyer notice on 4.5.2008. Ext. A9 is the reply notice sent by opposite party's council to the complainant's council. 7. Second opposite party filed proof affidavit. Ext. B1 and B2 also marked. In the proof affidavit he sated as in the version. Ext. B1 is the photo copy of pay in slip date 25.4.2006 which shows that one Toby George deposited Rs.5,000/- into the account of the complainant ie.A/c No.14405 of S. Bathery Branch. Ext. B2 is the pay in slip issued by the opposite parties. 8. On evaluating the evidence of complainant and opposite parties and the Exhibits marked on both sides we could understand that the complainant is the resident of S. Bathery and he is having an account with 2nd opposite party having ATM facility. Ext. A3 and B1 shows that Rs.5,000/- is deposited in the account of the complainant on 25.4.2006 at Gandhi Nagar branch of opposite parties. An amount of Rs.55/- is collected as Exchange charge. Ext. A2 shows that the complainant's wife is consulted Dr. Renji Isac Mathews at Banglore. Ext. A4 shows that on 28.6.08 the complainant tried to withdraw money from his account but the Balance is only Rs.746/-. Ext. A5 shows that on 2.5.06 the complainant obtained a statement of Accounts in respect of his account and the balance was Rs.746/-. That shows that the amount sent on 25.4.06 is not credited into his account. Ext. A6 shows that on 2.5.2006 at 11.54 hrs. the complainant has tried to withdraws money from his account and the same was failed due to insufficient of funds. The main contentions of the opposite parties are that the delay is caused due to technical snag and the complainant not informed the opposite parties regarding non credit of the amount into his account till 4.5.2006. The opposite parties could not succeed in the contention taken in the version. It is true that there is an inordinate delay in crediting the amount in to the account of the complainant. 2nd opposite party admitted in his cross examination that if there is any defect in AWB transaction it will be known to the Head Office. But they have not produced any evidence before us to show that it was due to the technical snag of AWB transaction. It is clear from Ext. A5 and Ext. A6 that the complainant was present at 2nd opposite party's Bank at Bathery on 2.5.2006. Naturally he might have met 2nd opposite party on the same day to clear his grievances. Hence their version stating that non crediting of amount into the account of the complainant is known only on 4.5.2006 is not believable. Hence it is clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Point No.1 disposed accordingly. 9.Point No.2: It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the resident of S. Bathery and he is having an account with 2nd opposite party. Ext. A2, A4, shows that the complainant along with his wife were present at Banglore and the complainant tried to withdraw money from his account. But there is no evidence to show that the complainant came to S. Bathery to collect money and consulted another doctor at Banglore. Hence the complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,500/-as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of this case. Point No.2 is decided accordingly. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees thousand only) towards cost of this case. The order is to be complied within 30 days of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 27th September, 2008 PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: I Sd/- MEMBER: II Sd/- A P P E N D I X Witness examined for complainant: PW1 Antony Complainant Witness examined for opposite parties OPW1 P.C. Augustian Manager Exhibits marked for complainant: A1 Original of Leaf let A2 Medical prescription Dt. 28.4.2006 A3 Counter foil A4 Balance enquiry print A/c. No.14405 A5 Statement of accounts from 1.4.2006 to 30.4.2006 A6 Card No. 404834XX3039 A7 Series Copy of lawyer notice, Postal receipt A8 Series AD Card A9 Reply notice Exhibits marked for opposite parties: B1 Copy of pay in-slip B2 Specimen of pay-in-slip
