Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

198/2011

C.Narendran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ms.Ranjani Devi

08 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 02.12.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 08.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.198 /2011

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 08^TH DAY OF MAY 2018

                                 

Mr. C. Narendran,

Prop. M/s. Usha Signs,

No.9/5, 8^th Street,

Mangalapuram,

Chetpet ,

Chennai – 600 031.                                                .. Complainant.                                                       

 

                                                                              ..Versus..

1. The Manager,

Indian  Bank,

Egmore Branch,

Chennai – 600 008.

 

2. The Managing Director,

Indian Bank,

No.66, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.                                            ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant         :  Ms. J. Ranjani Devi

Counsel for Opposite parties  :  Mrs. Sunanda Suren

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- being debited from his account, to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/-.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

 

The complainant is having an account with the 1^st opposite party.The complainant submits that on 14.12.2008, the complainant used his debit card to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- through ATM.But no amount was received and got a reply as “INSUFFICIENT FUND”.Hence the complainant used the same debit card for withdrawing a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the same day, after two minutes through the same ATM which also, shown as insufficient funds.On 17.12.2008, the complainant came to know that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was debited from his account on the transaction dated:14.12.2008.Immediately, the complainant met the 1^st opposite party and informed the irregularity of the ATM and requested to credit the amount without any delay.The complainant also submitted letters Dated: 20.12.2008 and 07.02.2009since the 1^st opposite party has not recredited the amount.The opposite party issued reply dated:25.02.2009 stating that the transactions dated: 14.12.2008 were successful clear transaction and there was no default.Further the complainant submits that on 02.03.2009, the complainant sent another letter to the 2^nd opposite party for which, reply dated: 16.03.2009 was issued by the 2^nd opposite party for which, the complainant sent due answer to the questionnaire dated:13.04.2009.The 2^nd opposite party also sent reply dated: 17.04.2009for which, the complainant sent letter dated 21.04.2009 thereby, the complainant exchanged several letters including finance Minister, Reserve Bank of India with an allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that, as per the procedure the complainant inserted the ATM card for withdrawal of the amount Rs.15,000/- on 14.12.2008, at 18.40 hours and 18.54. The transaction also was successful and the ATM disbursed the amount also.   The complainant without producing the alleged ATM display showing insufficient fund receipt raising such wild contentions that the transactions failed: not acceptable.  Further the opposite parties state that, on 14.12.2008, between 18.40 hours and 18.54 hours there are other two transactions took place which are successful proves that the ATM machine was not in fault or repair.  Further the opposite parties state that, the letter dated:07.02.2009 was duly replied with detailed facts.  The opposite party also filed 17 documents to prove that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B18 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.     The points for consideration is

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- debited from his account as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

5.     On point:

Heard both sides.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents, written arguments of the opposite parties etc.  Admittedly, the complainant is having an account with the 1^st opposite party.  The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that on 14.12.2008, the complainant used his debit card to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- through ATM.   But no amount was received and got a reply as “INSUFFICIENT FUND”.  Hence the complainant used the same debit card for withdrawing a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the same day, after two minutes through the same ATM which also, shown as insufficient funds.   On 17.12.2008, the complainant came to know that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was debited from his account on the transaction dated:14.12.2008.  Immediately, the complainant met the 1^st opposite party and informed the irregularity of the ATM and requested to credit the amount without any delay.  The complainant also submitted  letters Dated: 20.12.2008 and 07.02.2009  since the 1^st opposite party has not recredited the amount.  On a careful perusal of the records, the complainant has not produced any document to prove that he met the 1^st opposite party on 17.12.2008 and issued letter dated:20.12.2008 for the letter dated 07.02.2009 as per Ex.A1.  The opposite party issued reply Dated:25.02.2009 as per Ex.A2 stating that the transactions dated: 14.12.2008 were successful clear transaction and there was no default. 

6.     Further the complainant contended that on 02.03.2009, the complainant sent another letter Ex.A3 to the 2^nd opposite party for which, Ex.A5,  reply dated: 16.03.2009 was issued by the 2^nd opposite party for which, the complainant sent due answer to the questionnaire dated:13.04.2009 as per Ex.A8.   The 2^nd opposite party also sent reply dated: 17.04.2009  for which, the complainant sent letter dated 21.04.2009 thereby, the complainant  exchanged several letters including finance Minister, Reserve Bank of India with an allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   But on a careful perusal of the entire records, the complainant was miserably failed to produce the ATM slip showing “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS”.  The complainant has also not produced any document to prove the action initiated by him without any delay.  The learned Counsel for the opposite parties contended that, as per the procedure the complainant inserted the ATM card for withdrawal of the amount Rs.15,000/- on 14.12.2008, at 18.40 hours and 18.54 as per Ex.B1 & Ex.B5.   The transactions also were successful and the ATM disbursed the amount also.   The complainant without producing the alleged ATM display showing insufficient fund receipt raising such wild contentions that the transactions failed: is not acceptable.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that, on 14.12.2008, between 18.40 hours and 18.54 hours there are other two transactions took place which are successful proves that the ATM machine was not in fault or repair. 

7.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that, the letter dated:07.02.2009 was duly replied with detailed facts.  The opposite party also filed 17 documents to prove that there is no deficiency in service on their part.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 08^th day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	07.02.2009	Copy of letter given to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A2	25.02.2009	Copy of reply received from the opposite party
Ex.A3	02.03.2009	Copy of the letter given to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A4	07.03.2009	Copy of the letter received from the Head Office
Ex.A5	16.03.2009	Copy of the letter given to the Information Officer
Ex.A6	08.04.2009	Copy of the letter sent by the complainant
Ex.A7	13.04.2009	Copy of the reply from the Information Officer
Ex.A8	13.04.2009	Copy of the letter from the Customer Service Cell
Ex.A9	17.04.2009	Copy of reply from the customer Service Cell
Ex.A10	21.04.2009	Copy of the letter sent under RTI Act
Ex.A11	21.04.2009	Copy of the letter sent to RBI
Ex.A12	20.05.2009	Copy of the reply from the opposite party
Ex.A13	04.06.2009	Copy of the letter to the Ministry of Finance
Ex.A14	29.06.2009	Copy of the letter sent to the opposite party
Ex.A15	08.07.2009	Copy of the letter from the opposite party
Ex.A16	26.08.2009	Copy of the letter sent to the Prime Minister Cell
Ex.A17	14.09.2009	Copy of the letter to the Dept. of Banking Supervision
Ex.A18		Copy of the receipt from the Prime Minister Cell
Ex.A19	30.11.2009	Copy of the letter sent to the Prime Minister Cell
Ex.A20	12.01.2010	Copy of the letter issued to the Finance Committee

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	14.12.2008	Copy of transaction log
Ex.B2	14.12.2008	Copy of ATM cash Balance Statement
Ex.B3	17.12.2008	Copy of ATM cash Balance Statement
Ex.B4	30.12.2008	Copy of ATM Service Centre Claim details of the complainant
Ex.B5	01.02.2009	Copy of statement of account of the complainant
Ex.B6	07.02.2009	Copy of letter from the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.B7	25.02.2009	Copy of letter from the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B8	02.03.2009	Copy of letter from the complainant to the MD Indian Bank
Ex.B9	07.03.2009	Copy of letter from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B10	16.03.2009	Copy of letter from the complainant to the Public Information Officer
Ex.B11	18.03.2009	Copy of the letter from the India bank RTI Desk to the 1st opposite party
Ex.B12	26.03.2009	Copy of the letter from the 1st opposite party to the customer service Indian Bank
Ex.B13	13.04.2009	Copy of letter from the Indian Bank RTI Desk to the complainant
Ex.B14	20.05.2009	Copy of letter from the Indian bank RTI Desk to the complainant
Ex.B15	18.06.2009	Copy of letter from Mr. K.v. Mohan to the 1st opposite party
Ex.B16	24.06.2009	Copy of letter from Mrs. G. Shantha to the 1st opposite party
Ex.B17	08.07.2009	Copy of letter from the Indian bank HO Technology Management Department to the complainant
Ex.B18		Switch Report

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT