KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES             REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

          APPEAL 10/2011

JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2011

PRESENT:-

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU      :       PRESIDENT

APPELLANT

The Chief Manager,

State Bank of Travancore,

Cherplassery Branch, P.B. No. 51,

SICO Towers,

Cherplassery, District Palakkad

       .                 

                 (Rep. by Adv.  Sri. M. Nizamudeen)

                                              Vs

RESPONDENT

N.C. Unnikrishnan,

S/o Late P. Krishnankutty Nair,

‘Rohini’, Near Kongad Post Office, P.O. Kongad,

Palakkad District.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU      :    PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/SBT authorities in C.C. 81/01 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad.

          The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and if the amount is not paid within one month to pay with interest @ 9%. 

          The case of the complainant is that out of the amount of Rs. 31,013.74 deposited by him with the opposite party, he had withdrawn Rs. 12,000/- on 18.11.2009.  Hence there was balance of Rs. 19,013.74 as per the ATM Customer advice.  On 4.2.2010 when he wanted to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- the balance amount found was only Rs. 4,097.74.  He immediately complained before the bank authorities.  They were stated that on the same day the complainant has withdrawn another Rs. 15,000/-  According to the complainant he has not withdrawn any such amount.  He has sought for refund of Rs. 15,000/- and compensation of Rs. 13,000/-

          According to the opposite parties the complainant has withdrawn another 15,000/- on the same day on 18.11.2009 apart from Rs. 12,000/- It is stated that a matter was examined by the ATM Nodal Officer and was informed.  Both transactions have take place within a gap of less than a minute.  The opposite party has claimed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensatory costs.

          The evidence adduced consisted of proof affidavits of both  sides and Ext. A1 to A12.

 The Forum has held that in the absence of concrete evidence as to the person who withdrew Rs. 15,000/- on the same day, the claim for refund of Rs. 15,000/- can not be allowed.  All the same as the opposite parties have failed to provide adequate security measures or camera facility, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation.  We find that there is absolutely no scope for interfering in the order of the Forum.  It is for the opposite parties/appellants to provide sufficient security measures to see that the amounts are not withdrawn by anybody else other than the customer or on his behalf.  The opposite parties have not adduced any documentary evidence in this regard.   Hence we find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  The appeal is dismissed in limine.

          The office is directed to forward the copy of the order urgently.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                               JUSTICE .K.R. UDAYABHANU        :    PRESIDENT

ST