THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF APRIL 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 596/2014
1. M/s Axis Bank Limited,
No.9, Esquire Centre,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-01
Rep. by its authorized Manager.
2. M/s Axis Bank Limited,
Having its Branch Office at
J.P.Nagar (Off Bannerghatta Road),
Bangalore-560 078
Represented by its Manager.
….Appellant/s.
(By Sri/Smt. Jai Patil, Adv.,)
-Versus-
Sri. Sanjeev SinghS/o Komal Singh,
A/a 43 years, Residing at No.B-906,
I-Life Apartment, Devarabisanahalli,
Marathalli Ring Road,
Bangalore – 560 037.
(By Sri/Smt. Ajay J.N, Adv.,)
……….. Respondent/s
: ORDERS:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The O.P. in complaint No.783/2013 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Bangalore Urban III Addl. District Consumer Commission, which directed them to pay an amount of Rs.37,049/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 20.09.2012 till actual payment along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant is a beneficiary under credit card facility provided by the appellant’s Bank vide card No.4718610003165066. Such being the case, on 31.10.2011, he intended to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from his S.B. Account maintained with Opposite Party No.1 Bank at the ATM maintained by HDFC Bank which was in the premises of his Company and by oversight, the complainant inserted his credit card issued by appellant for withdrawal of the amount. Immediately, he noticed it and took back the credit card and inserted his debit card and withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/-. But subsequently, the Opposite Party/Bank had issued monthly statement for the period from 21.10.2011 to 21.11.2011 demanding for payment of Rs.22,993/- reflecting a cash withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 21.10.2011 and Rs.15,000/- on 25.10.2011 in two different ATMs. In-fact, the complainant had not withdrawn the above said amounts through credit card. In spite of that, the Opposite Party/Bank has issued bill for payment. Hence, alleged deficiency in service and filed the complaint.
3. After issuance of notice by the District Commission, the appellant appeared before the District Commission and took a contention that the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 21.10.2011 and Rs.15,000/- on 25.10.2011 by using credit card at different ATMs. The same was reflected in the statement of accounts. Even the transaction slip maintained with the ATM are also reflected the same. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of this appellant/Opposite Party in issuing bill for payment of the said withdrawal amount. Hence, submits to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint by directing this appellant to pay Rs.37,049/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 20.09.2012 till payment along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Parties filed this appeal on various grounds.
6. We have heard the arguments from respondent. The appellants did not submit their arguments before us in spite of several opportunities provided to them.
7. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed that the complainant initially alleged that he had not withdrawn any amount by using his credit card as because he had sufficient balance in his S.B. Account and by oversight he inserted the credit card for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 31.10.2011, but immediately he took back the credit card and inserted his debit card for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.10,000/- through his S.B. Account maintained in ICICI Bank vide account No.625301217721. Whereas the statement of accounts issued by this appellant/Bank dated:21.10.2011 to 21.11.2011, this appellant/Bank has demanded for payment of Rs.22,933.21 and further we noticed that the Opposite Party/Bank has demanded for payment of Rs.10,000/- which was drawn on 21.01.2011 and Rs.15,000/- on 25.10.2011 at two different ATMs, for which the complainant alleged that he had not withdrawn the said amount.
8. On careful observation of the affidavit sworn by the complainant, we noticed that he had attempted to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 31.10.2011 and by oversight he has inserted his credit card and subsequently he came to know that it was credit card and removed it and inserted his debit card and withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 31.10.2011, whereas he alleges that the Opposite Party/Bank has demanded for payment of Rs.10,000/- which was drawn on 21.10.2011 by using credit card and also withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- on 25.10.2011. The demand made by the Opposite Party/Bank through statement of accounts of the credit card has no nexus with the transaction took place on 31.10.2011. The complainant had not explained whether he has not withdrawn the said amount from HDFC ATM machine by using credit card. He has just sworn affidavit that he has not made any withdrawal from using credit card on 31.10.2021. On observation of the statement of accounts the appellant/Bank has demanded for payment of the withdrawal of cash dated:21.10.2011 and 25.10.2011. When such being case, the District Commission has wrongly assumed that the complainant had a sufficient amount in S.B. Account and he has no occasion to withdraw the amount from using credit card. Hence, allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Party to pay the amount as stated above, which is bad in law. The District Commission ought to consider the date of withdrawal of the amount from the ATM using credit card, but the District Commission failed to appreciate the objections and defense taken by the Opposite Party and awarded compensation. As such there is an error in the order passed by the District Commission. Hence, it has to be set-aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:26.02.2014 passed by Bangalore Urban III Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.783/2013 is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
