Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/398

THE MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROY ANTONY - Opp.Party(s)

H JOSH

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 398/14

 

JUDGMENT DATED:29.02.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

The Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.,                                             : APPELLANT                                 Kasaragod Branch, Kasaragod.

 

(By Adv: Sri. H. Josh)

 

            Vs.

1. Roy Antony,

Madathil Kuzhingoor Veedu,

Chayyoth P.O, Nileswar.

 

(By Adv: Smt. Indulekha)

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2. Manager,

SBT, Kadumeni.P.O,

Kadumeni.

 

(By Adv: Sri. G.S. Kalkura)

 

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the 2^nd opposite party in CC.294/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod, challenging the order of the Forum dated June 30, 2014 directing the 2^nd opposite party to pay Rs.6000/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.3000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

On March 16, 2012 at about 2.18pm complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.7000/- from the ATM counter of 2^nd opposite party bank.  But instead only Rs.1000/- was delivered.  But an amount of Rs.7000/- was debited from his account and an amount of Rs.18,676/- was available balance after withdrawal.  At about 2.37 pm complainant again tried to withdraw Rs.100/- but surprisingly a slip came out stating that dispenser failure request not serviced.  He made a complaint to the first opposite party, State Bank of Travancore, Kadumeni but there was no response.   Complainant approached Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India.  Ombudsman closed his complaint directing the complainant to approach the Forum for redressal of his grievance.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint for getting back Rs.6000/- and a compensation of Rs.5000/- from the 2^nd opposite party.

3.      First opposite party Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Kadumeni Branch remained absent before the Forum.  The 2^nd opposite party, Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Kasaragod Branch, in his version contended thus before the Forum:-  The allegation of the complainant that he obtained only Rs.1000/- as against request for Rs.7000/- is not correct.  As per automated log journal maintained with ATM machine the transaction was recorded as successful and Rs.7000/- was dispensed.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked from his side and the 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on his side before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that actually complainant got only Rs.1000/- and directed the 2^nd opposite party to pay Rs.6000/- along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.3000/-.  Second opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

7.      Almost all the facts are admitted.  On March 16, 2012 at about 2.18pm complainant attempted to withdraw Rs.7000/- from the ATM of 2^nd opposite party at Kasaragod branch.  According to him he got only Rs.1000/-.  Ext.P1 is the withdrawal slip for proving the transaction of PW1.  PW1 testified that on the same day he filed the complaint before the 2^nd opposite party.  The complaint given to the Banking Ombudsman returned stating that PW1 can approach the other Forum for redressal of his grievance.

8.      The case of the opposite party is that actually complainant obtained Rs.7000/- and his allegation that he received only Rs.1000/- is false.  The appellant did not produce the CCTV footage to prove that actually complainant got Rs.7000/- from the ATM.

9.      Customer Service Department (CSD) of Reserve Bank of India issued a communication to National Payment Corporation of India issuing guidelines to all member banks to make provision in the customer complaint form for request for CCTV/Camera images.  Thus in this case burden is on the 2^nd opposite party to produce CCTV footage in respect of transaction of the complainant to prove that actually Rs.7000/- was dispensed to the complainant.  Therefore we are of the view that Forum is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

10.    The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6000/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.3000/-.  We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum. 

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.