BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 31st day of October, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.93/2009 Between Complainant : T.N.Sanalkumar, Padathu House, Prakash P.O, Prakash Kara, Idukki District. (By Adv: V.C.Sebastian) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Kattappana Branch, Kattappana P.O, Pin 685 508, Idukki District. (By Adv: Baby Joseph) 2. The Manager, State Bank of Travancore, (ADB) Branch, Kattappana P.O, Pin 685 508, Idukki District.
O R D E R SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
The complainant is operating an SB Account No.6702858368-5 and an ATM Account No.5049937069800017753 with the Ist opposite party bank. The ATM Account operation was through the 2nd opposite party bank. The complainant is a Field Officer of the Mobile company. On 10.03.2007 the complainant made a deposit of Rs.40,000/- and recorded in the pass book. On 11.03.2007 the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.15,000/- through the ATM of 2nd opposite party. In the pass book the credit balance was Rs.29,663/-. On 12.03.2007 he tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- but failed. So he made a complaint to the Ist opposite party. As per the direction of the Ist opposite party, on 13.03.2009 the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.14,000/-, at that time the credit balance was Rs.663/-. The complainant has given a complaint to the Ist opposite party to check out the account balance. On receipt of the complaint the Ist opposite party enquired about it but they did not care to check the balance amount. Several demands were made to the opposite party and a notice was issued to Vigilance Department that the Ist opposite party has stolen the amount and misappropriated it. On 10.05.2007, the Ist opposite party sent a letter stating some false details. The opposite party has not done anything in the matter. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for directing to the opposite party to refund Rs.15,000/- with 18% interest and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
2. In the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant has one SB Account bearing No.6702858368-5 and ATM Account bearing No.5049937069800017753with the Ist opposite party bank. On 10.03.2007 the complainant remitted Rs.40,000/- at Kathrikadavu Branch. The balance in SB Account on 10.03.2007 was Rs.44,663/-. On the same day at 6.28 p.m, the complainant or his wife withdrawn Rs.15,000/- from the ATM of 2nd opposite party at Kattappana. On 11.03.2007 at 5.17 p.m, the complainant or his wife again withdrawn Rs.15,000/- through ATM at Kattappana. The available balance was Rs.14,663/-. The transaction number was 119. On 12.03.2007 the complainant tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- in excess of the balance amount. So he did not get the money. According to the ATM operation procedure, the party ought to have obtained machine generated transaction slip showing the balance of Rs.14,663/-. On 13.03.2007, the complainant withdrawn Rs.14,000/-. On receipt of the complaint, the Ist opposite party enquired about it without any delay and after verifying the transaction in ATM of 2nd opposite party, replied to the complainant that all transactions and withdrawals were correct during the period from 10.03.2007 to 12.03.2007. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. 3. In the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs.40,000/- on10.03.2007 with Ist opposite party bank. On the same day that is on 10.03.2007 at 6.28 p.m, the complainant withdrawn Rs.15,000/-. On 11.03.2007 he withdrawn Rs.15,000/-. On 12.03.2007, he failed to withdraw Rs.15,000/- because there was no sufficient fund for allowing withdrawal. The balance became only Rs.14,663/-. On 13.03.2007 the complainant withdrawn Rs.14,000/-. The statement of loss of Rs.15,000/- is false. The 2nd opposite party is not liable to provide any service to the complainant directly. The Ist opposite party is using the ATM counter of 2nd opposite party for the withdrawal of the amount of their customers. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 on the side of the complainant and the testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R6(series) marked on the side of the opposite parties.
6. The POINT :- It is admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- on 10.03.2007. Therefore the total balance was Rs.44,663/-. On 12.03.2007 the complainant could not withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Anyhow the main grievance of the complainant is that he lost Rs.15,000/-, so he approached the opposite party for compensation by issuing a lawyer notice, but no steps were taken to redress his grievance. It is also stated that he approached Vigilance DYSP, Kattappana with a complaint in the matter. But no redressal was received in that end also. According to the complainant, there was no reaction from the part of the opposite party regarding the redressal of his grievance. The complainant as PW1 would state that he had lost Rs.15,000/-. On 12.03.2007 he tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/-, but failed. The balance amount shown in the account was only Rs.14,663/-. Ext.P1 is the copy of the complaint to the Ist opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of the complaint to the DYSP, Kattappana. Ext.P3 is the ATM slip. Ext.P4 is the copy of the pass book. Ext.P5 is the copy of the legal notice. Ext.P6 is the copy of the letter from the Ist opposite party. In cross examination, the complainant admitted that he had withdrawn Rs.15,000/- on 10.03.2007 at 6.28 p.m. The system of accounting is that, the withdrawal made through the ATM machine after the working hours of the bank would enter in the ledger only on the next day. The withdrawal made on 10.03.2007 was entered in his account only on 11.03.2007. The complainant also admitted that there was no mistake to the ATM machine. The Ist opposite party as DW1 would state that the complainant had deposited Rs.40,000/- on 10.03.2007 and withdrawn an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 10.03.2007 at 6.18 p.m, Rs.15,000/- on 11.03.2007 at 5.17 p.m, and on 12.03.2007 he tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- but failed, because the balance amount shown in the account was only Rs.14,663/-. The complainant tried to withdraw an amount in excess of Rs.14,663/-. So the complainant did not get money and stated that there was no mistake to the ATM machine. Ext.R2 is the users manual. Ext.R3 is the statement of account. Ext.R4 is the journal printing log. Ext.R5 is the extract of ATM transaction. The sequence of the events would show that the opposite party had taken all timely steps on receipt of complaint from the complainant. In Ext.P6 letter dated 10.05.2007, the opposite party clearly stated all the transactions. All these evidence would prove that the complainant tried to withdraw an amount in excess of Rs.14,663/-. The opposite party had done everything lawfully expected from them by an ordinary consumer and no deficiency in service can be found against them. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2009 Sd/- SMT.SHEEA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - T.N.Sanalkumar On the side of Opposite Party : DW1 - K.S.Krishnanunni Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - True copy of complainant's complaint dated 12.03.2007 addressed to the Ist opposite party Ext.P2 - True copy of complaint dated 17.03.2007 filed by the wife of the complainant before the Deputy Police Superintendent, Kattappana Ext.P3(series) - True copy of ATM Slips(2 Nos) Ext.P4 - True copy of Pass Book Ext.P5 - True copy of Legal Notice dated 16.04.2007 issued by the Advocate of the complainant Ext.P6 - True copy of letter dated 10.05.2007 issued by the Ist opposite party to the complainant Ext.P7 - Advertisement dated 19.07.2009 published in the Malayala Manorama Daily On the side of Opposite Party : Ext.R1 - Authorisation letter dated 7.10.2009 issued by the Ist opposite party Ext.R2 - User's Manual Ext.R3 - Statement of Account issued by the Ist opposite party Ext.R4 - True copy of Journal Printing Log Ext.R5 - Extract of ATM Transactions Ext.R6(series) - JP Log of the Computer(4 pages)
| | HONORABLE Sheela Jacob, Member | HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Bindu Soman, Member | | 
