BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.811/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 24^th March 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking refund of Rs.10,000/- withdrawn from his account, along with interest at 23% p.a., Rs.10,000/- damages towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant, account holder of opposite party No.1, withdrew a sum of Rs.2,000/-, from ATM of opposite party No.2 bank, on 01.07.2015.  On 02.07.2015, when verified found that, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn on 01.07.2015, without his knowledge.  A complaint lodged with opposite party No.2 requesting to verify the C.C. Camera recordings, to ascertain the fraudulent withdrawal by unknown person.  But, the recording was very poor as the camera was not working properly.  The complaint was referred to National Payments Corporation of India.  On examination of the documents, they decided that the transaction was successful and there are no lapses by the opposite parties.  Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed the complaint, seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party No.1 admits the withdrawal of amount from ATM of opposite party No.2 on 01.07.2015 at 9.06.02 hrs and withdrawal of another sum of Rs.10,000/- at 9.07.56 on the same day at the same ATM of opposite party No.2.  The S.B. account, complainant was transferred to opposite party No.1’s another branch w.e.f. 06.01.2015 as such, the complaint is not maintainable against it.  On verification, it was found that, the complainant drawn both the amount and the transaction was successful.  As such, there are no lapses and deficiency in service and are not liable to pay any damages to the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     The opposite party No.2 admits the withdrawal of the amount by complainant and denies non-withdrawal of sum of Rs.10,000/- on 01.07.2015 at 9.07.56 hrs.  The complainant has not lodged any complaint with opposite party No.2 regarding the alleged transactions within 3 months from the date of withdrawal as such, the recordings were not available.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service by them and prays for dismissal of the complaint.   
5.     The complainant lead his evidence by filing affidavit and relied on several documents.  Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 lead their evidence by filing affidavit and placed documents.  Complainant and opposite party No.1 filed written arguments.  Heard the counsel for complainant and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and matter posted for orders.
6.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for fraudulent withdrawal of amount from his S.B. Account and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant alleged the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from his S.B.Account on 01.07.2015 at 9.07.56 hrs without his knowledge as fraud and non-refund of the same to him as deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  The requests made to verify the C.C.Camera recordings found futile as the camera was not properly working.  The complainant was referred to the mediation centre in National Payment Corporation of India, who on examination of the documents decided that there were no lapses on the part of opposite parties.
9.    The opposite parties contended that the complainant had withdrew Rs.2,000/- on 01.07.2015 at 9.06.02 hrs and again at 9.07.56 hrs at the same ATM counter of opposite party No.2.  The documents placed on record by the opposite parties clearly confirms the withdrawal of the amount.  Further, the complainant has filed the complaint with opposite party No.2 regarding the said fraudulent withdrawal of amount after the lapse of three months, as such, the camera recordings were not available.  Hence, contended that, they have not committed any deficiency in service and are not liable to pay any damages to the complainant.
10. On perusal of the documents on record, the opposite parties have established the withdrawal of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on 01.07.2015 at opposite party No.2 ATM at 9.06.02 hrs and 9.07.56 hrs.  It is also true that withdrawal of amount from ATM is not possible unless the use of the card and use the PIN number.  Thereby allegation of fraudulent withdrawal of amount from the ATM, the complainant’s S.B. Account is not accepted.  As such, the complainant failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  In view of the same, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any damages to the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.   Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 24^th March 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER