Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/615/2012

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VIJAYA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

G. VENKATACHALAM - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.S. RUKMANGATHAN

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :    HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI               PRESIDENT  

                    THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                               MEMBER                                                                                   

F.A.NO.615/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.187/2011, dated 19.03.2012 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore)

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

 

1.The Executive Director,

   M/s.Vijaya Bank,

   No.41/2, M.G.Road,

   Bengaluru 560 001.

 

2.The Senior Branch Manager,

   M/s. Vijaya Bank,

   Varadarajapuram Branch,                                     Appellants / Opposite parties

   Kamarajar Salai,

   Uppilipalayam Post,

   Coimbatore – 641 015.

 

                                       Vs

 

1.Mr.G.Venkatachalam,

   S/o.P.Ganapathy,                                                 Respondents / Complainants

   Door No.21, Andal Nagar,

   Varadarajapuram,

   Singanallur,

   Coimbatore 641 055.

 

2.Mr.Logu,

   Secretary,

   Coimbatore Consumer Voice,

   Avinasi Road,

   Coimbatore 641 016.

 

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 26.11.2014 and on hearing the arguments of the appellants and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:

Counsel for Appellants/ Opposite parties : M/s.N.K.S.Rukmangathan            

Counsel for Respondents/ Complainants        :   Served called absent 

                        

J.JAYARAM,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC.No.187/2011 dated 19.03.2012, allowing the complaint.

2.       The case of the complainant is that on 6.4.2011 he withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- twice using his ATM card and thus he had withdrawn a total sum of Rs.20,000/- on that day; but a sum of Rs.28,000/- had been debited in his account as though he withdrew a sum of Rs.20,000/- on that date using his ATM.  He contacted the opposite parties and lodged a complaint requesting the opposite parties to credit a sum of Rs.8000/- in his account since he did not withdraw Rs.8000/-;  but the opposite parties did not take any action on his representation.  This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint.

3.       According to the opposite parties the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.10000/-+ Rs.10,000/- + Rs.8000/- a total sum of Rs.28,000/- on 6.4.2011, as disclosed by their office records and there is no deficiency in service on their side.

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not crediting Rs.8000/- in the complainant’s account which amount was not withdrawn by the complainant and passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.8000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 11% per annum from 6.4.2011 till the date of payment and a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.3000/-.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

6.       In the appeal 5 additional documents were filed by the opposite parties and marked as Ex.B3 to B7.

7.       It is contended by the 1^st complainant / 1^st Respondent that he did not withdraw Rs.8000/- on 6.4.2011 using his ATM card. Per contra the opposite parties / appellants would contend that a sum of Rs.8000/- has been withdrawn by the 1^st complainant using his ATM card on that date.

8.       The District Forum has observed that the opposite parties have not established that there was no excess amount in the ATM on that day and that the opposite parties have not produced the relevant records, mainly EJ-file.

9.       We have to note that the opposite parties have filed 5 additional documents in the appeal which are marked as Ex.B3 to B7, in addition, to the records Ex.B1 and B2 already filed by them.  Ex.B3 is the Cash in ATM Account dated 5.4.2011 and Ex.B4 is the Cash in ATM Account dated 6.4.2011 and Ex.B5 is the Cash in ATM Account dated 7.4.2011 and Ex.B6 is the EJ File extract dated 7.4.2011 and Ex.B7 is the Cash Particulars Register (ATM Cash) dated 7.4.2011.  On perusal of the above records we find that a sum of Rs.8000/- has been withdrawn using the ATM card of the complainant on 6.4.2011.

10.     Therefore it is evident that a sum of Rs.8000/- has been withdrawn on 6.4.2011 using the complainant’s ATM card.

 

11.     The District Forum has come to the erroneous conclusion, that the opposite parties have not established that a sum of Rs.8000/- had been withdrawn using the complainant’s ATM card and therefore the order of the District Forum is to be set aside.

12.     On consideration of the entire materials on record we hold that a sum of Rs.8000/- has been withdrawn on 6.4.2011 using the 1^st complainant’s ATM card and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

13.     In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                    J.JAYARAM                          R.REGUPATHI

     MEMBER                          (J) MEMBER                            PRESIDENT