Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/214/2012

THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

G. SELVAM - Opp.Party(s)

S. Natarajan

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                                  Present: Thiru J. Jayaram,                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                            MEMBER

F.A. No. 214 / 2012

                                 (Against the Order in C.C. No. 21 / 2010, dated 20-01-2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Perambalur)

Dated this the 17^th day of AUGUST, 2015

The Branch Manager,                ]

State Bank of India,                  ]

Ariyalur,                                   ]  Appellant / Opposite Party

Ariyalur District                         ]

 

                   Vs.

G. Selvam,                               ]

Selvam Building,                       ]

Rajaji Nagar 2^nd Cross,             ]

Ariyalur,                                   ]  Respondent / Complainant

Ariyalur District                         ]

     

                    This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 22-07-2015 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Appellant:     -        M/s S. Natarajan

Counsel for Respondent:  -        M/s Muthu Kumar

J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

             This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Perambalur in C.C.No.21 / 2010, dated 20-01-2011, allowing the complaint.

              The case of the complainant is that she had an SB Account with the opposite party bank; and her pension was being deposited in her account every month by the Treasury, and she had availed ATM facility with the opposite party bank. Her credit balance in the account as on 01-04-2009 was Rs.10,194-40. On 02-04-2009 she had withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,000/- and the balance in her account was Rs.7,194-40. On 14-04-2009, Rs.485/- plus Rs.455/- were credited. These two amounts were credited and the balance was Rs.8,164/-. The complainant did not transact with the ATM from 03-04-2009 to 14-04-2009, and in the Mini Statement of the ATM taken on 04-03-2009 at 11-29 am, the Mini Statement showed a credit balance of 9,950/-. The complainant tried to withdraw the amount, and she had the credit balance of Rs.7,194-40 in her account; but the ATM machine declined the transaction as there was not sufficient balance amount in her account.

2.       The opposite party had debited an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the account of the complainant as if there was withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- as on 02-04-2009 at about 19-37 hrs. The contention of the opposite party is that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was wrongly debited in BGL account. Hence, as per the instructions of savings account of the complainant, Rs.10,000/- was debited in the account. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and hence the complaint.

3.       According to the opposite party, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from her SB Account through her ATM on 02-04-2009 wrongly debited to the office account instead of the customer’s SB account which was subsequently rectified, and there is no deficiency in service on their part.      

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to credit Rs.10,000/- in her account within a month from the date of the order along with admitted interest from 02-04-2009; and to pay a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony; and to pay costs of Rs.2500/-. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.  

5.       The contention of the complainant / respondent is that, she has not withdrawn Rs.10,000/- on 02-04-2009, as alleged by the opposite party and actually she did not have any transaction through the ATM on 02-04-2009.

6.       Per contra, the contention of the appellant / opposite party would be that, on 02-04-2009 Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant through the ATM and it was debited in the office account, instead of the customer’s SB account, and it was subsequently debited after the entry of Rs.3,000/- on 02-04-2009.  

7.       It is clearly seen from Ex.A1, ATM statement that no amount has been withdrawn by the complainant through ATM on      02-04-2009; Ex.A3 series contains a letter dated 16-12-2009 from the office of the Banking Ombudsman addressed to the complainant stating that the bank had clarified that the debit entry of Rs.10,000/- in her SB account was on account of ATM withdrawal from her account on 02-04-2009 which was wrongly debited to the office account, and now rectified. In Ex.A3 series we find another letter dated 10-12-2009 sent by the opposite party addressed to the Banking Ombudsman where they have stated that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- on 02-04-2009 at 19-37 hrs and it was a successful transaction; but the amount withdrawn has been credited to the office account instead of customer’s savings account; and during reconciliation, the amount was debited to the customer’s SB account.   

8.       The contention of the complainant is that she did not withdraw any amount through ATM on 02-04-2009; whereas the opposite party would contend that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had been withdrawn by her and that the amount withdrawn had been credited to office account instead of customer’s account and during reconciliation it was set right. The complainant’s contention is supported by the ATM statement Ex.A1.   

9.       It is pertinent to note that the opposite party has not produced any relevant records or registers, etc. and the error is not properly explained or proved.

10.     The mere one line statement issued by the opposite party that too addressed to the Banking Ombudsman and not to the complainant, stating that the amount was debited to the office account instead of the customer’s savings bank account and that it was set right during reconciliation establishes the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

11.     It is patently evident that a sum of Rs.10,000/- has not been withdrawn by the complainant through her ATM account on 02-04-2009; the opposite party has failed to substantiate that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant.

12.     For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in this regard.

13.     The District Forum has rightly concluded that there is deficiency in service, and has partly allowed the complaint, and has passed an order directing the opposite party to credit a sum of Rs.10,000/- in her account along with the admitted interest from 02-04-2009, and has also directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages / compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.2,500/-.

14.     We feel that the award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony is on the higher side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to reduce the compensation to Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, otherwise there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

15.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the compensation to Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) for mental agony instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum, and confirming the rest of the order. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 P. BAKIYAVATHI                                         J. JAYARAM          

           MEMBER                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER