Karnataka

Kolar

CC/72/2017

Sr.C.Venkataramana - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI, BEML - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.K.V.Adarsha

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 26/10/2017

Date of Order: 20/03/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 20^th DAY OF MARCH 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 72 OF 2017

Sri. C.Venkataramana Reddy,

S/o.late Chinnappa Reddy,

Aged About 56 Years,

R/at: No.199/1, Kyasamballi

Village and Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk,

Kolar District. PIN-563116.

 

Working at:

B.355-23319,

TR/FD: ASSEMBLY,

TOOL ROOM, BEML KGF.                                ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. A.V. Adarsha, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) State Bank Of India,

(Erstwhile State Bank Of Mysore),

BEML Nagara Branch, Bangarpet,

Kolar Gold Fields,

Rep. by Branch Manager.

(Rep. by Sri. J. Simon, Advocate)

 

2) State Bank Of India,

Head Office, Karnataka,

No.65, St Marks Road,

Bangalore-560001,

Rep. by General Manager.

(Exparte)

 

3) State Bank Of India,

Head Office, No.8, 19,

Devdas Kamlleg Block,

Synergy Building, Bandra

Kurla Complex-Bandra East,

Mumbai-400051,

Rep. by General Manager.

(Exparte)                                                                          …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) against the opposite parties for issuance of directions to Ops to credit the amount of Rs.40,000/- to the account of complainant with 24% interest from 23.03.2017 and also sought for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the damages and any other reliefs as this Forum deems to be fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, since 1991 he is an account holder of OP No.1 vide account No.254029276953.  On 21.03.2017 at about 06.06 PM the complainant had tried to withdraw Rs.20,000/- from the SBM ATM machine which is located at Robertsonpet, KGF.  But got reply as no cash.  So he withdrawn sum of Rs.20,000/- in the adjacent ATM machine.  Later on, on the same day night at about 10.48 PM he had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- at ATM center located at CT Shop, EM Division BEML, KGF.  Again on 22.03.2017 at about 10.45 PM he tried to withdraw Rs.20,000/- from the ATM machine located in Main Gate, EM Division, BEML, KGF, but got reply as no cash.

 

(b)    It is the submission of the complainant that, on 23.03.2017 he availed his statement of accounts from OP No.1 and noticed that, there is an deduction of Rs.60,000/- on 21.03.2017 and Rs.20,000/- on 22.03.2017.  In fact on 21.03.2017 he got the cash of Rs.40,000/- only at the ATM center.  Further on 22.03.2017 he did not get the amount of Rs.20,000/- at the ATM center.

 

(c)    In this regard on 23.03.2017 he had given complaint to the OP to credit the said amount of Rs.40,000/- to his account, but OP had not taken any steps even after several approaches made by him.  Thus again on 26.04.2017 he had given a written complaint to OP in this regard.

 

(d)    Again on 24.05.2017 he had given request letter to the OP, but got reply as “with reference to the letter dated: 24.05.2017 on going through the E.J. Log, it is showing E.J. successful, hence we are closing the complaint.” 

 

(e)    Further it is contended that, the ATM transaction extract given by the OP No.1 reveals that, he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.40,000/- on 20.03.2017 and Rs.40,000/- on 21.03.2017.  In fact he had not used the ATM card to withdraw the amount on 20.03.2017, but in his pass-book entry given by the OP No.1 shows that, he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.60,000/- on 21.03.2017 and Rs.20,000/- on 22.03.2017. 

 

(f)     It is further contended that, on 23.03.2017 he had given complaint in this regard to the Banking Ombudsman of Karnataka and got reply as on verification it was found that, the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.40,000/-.  They have given this reply without enquiring properly.  The Ops should have enquired by collecting the information from the CC TV cameras and should enquire in detail.

 

(g)    As per Banking Rules the limitation of ATM card per day is of Rs.40,000/- beyond that, it cannot be withdrawn.  So Ops without making proper enquiry shown negligence and deficiency in service and violated the Banking Rules and Regulations.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notices issued by this Forum, OP No.1 has put its appearance thorough its learned counsel and submitted written statement by resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.  As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet OP Nos.2 and 3 were placed exparte.

 

(a)    The OP No.1 admits that, the complainant is an account holder of OP Bank and all other averments made in the complaint were denied.  The OP No.1 contends that, the complainant had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- on 21.03.2017 at about 06.06 PM and cash is received the transaction number is 3128 and no dispute from the complainant about it.  He had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- on the same day at 10.48 PM and cash is received transaction number is 5093 and he confirmed the receipt of the cash.  On 22.03.2017 he had tried to withdraw Rs.20,000/- at 10.45 PM, but transaction was unsuccessful.  Thus he is accepting that he had received Rs.40,000/- (Rs.20,000/- each) on 21.03.2017.  He is denying for having made in ATM transaction on 20.03.2017 for Rs.40,000/- (Rs.20,000/- each on 20.03.2017 with transaction No.6672 at 10.49:50 PM and transaction No.6673 at 10.50:50 PM).

 

(b)    It is further contended that, the actual point is that, normally in ATM transaction EOD (End of the Day) starts at 10.30 PM and any ATM transactions made after 10.30 PM even though transaction are successful and cash is disbursed it will not be posted immediately due to EOD process and after EOD it will be posted in CBS (Core Banking Solution) as transaction of the next date.  In the present case also, Customer had made Rs.20,000/- each debit on 20.03.2017 at 10.49 PM and 10.50 PM with transaction ID No.6672 and 6673.  As these two transactions were made during EOD, it is posted as transactions of 21.03.2017.  Regarding ATM transaction made on 21.03.2017 at 06.06 PM with transaction No.3128 it was posted in CBS on the same day.  Another transaction of 21.03.2017 made at 10.48 PM, during EOD time Transaction ID No.5093 it was posted on 22.03.2017.  Thus it can be seen 03 debit transactions of Rs.20,000/- each on 21.03.2017 (2 transaction of 20.03.2017 and one transaction of 21.03.2017) and one debit transaction of 21.03.2017 for Rs.20,000/- on 22.03.2017.  Transaction log extract showing Transaction ID No.6672, 6673, 3128, 5093.

 

(c)    OP No.1 further contends that, after submission of entire log extracts to RBI which is convinced and explained in detail to the customer vide letter No.SB/54029276953 dated: 31.07.2017 and also requested the complainant to call for any doubt.  But the complainant did not respond.  Thus the complainant is trying to deny the transaction of 20.03.2017, thus there is no defective or insufficient of service on the part of the OP.  So contending OP No.1 prays for dismissal of this complaint with exemplary costs.

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exhibit.P.1 to Exhibit.P.6 and submitted the documents as under:-

(i) Copy of pass-book with statement of account.

(ii) Copy of letter dated: 26.04.2017 issued by complainant to the Manager, SMB, KGF.

(iii) Copy of the letter dated: 24.05.2017 issued by complainant to Manager, SBM, KGF.

(iv) Copy of statement dated: 24.05.2017 issued by SBI, BEML Nagar.

(v) Copy of letter dated: 15.06.2017 issued by complainant to Banking Ombudsmen of Karnataka.

(vi) Reply letter dated: 31.07.2017 from SBI, KGF.

 

05.   On behalf of OP No.1 Sri.J.L. Ramachandar, Branch Manager of SBI, BEML Nagar, KGF, has sworn to his affidavit evidence and submitted the same by way of examination-in-chief and his counsel has submitted the below mentioned documents:-

(i) Reply notice

(ii) Switch report & EJ log transaction dated: 20.03.2017

(iii) ATM transaction log

(iv) Account extract.

 

06.   Heard arguments of both counsel on both sides.

 

07.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

(1) Is there deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?

 

(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as he sought?

 

(3) What order?

 

08.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Negative

POINT (2):-      In the Negative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) & (2):-

09.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

10.   The dispute of the complainant is that, he had not received the money from ATM machine in the transaction made by him on 21.03.2017 at Robertsonpet, KGF, and on 22.03.2017 at ATM centre at Maingate, EM Division, BEML, KGF.

 

11.   Contrary to this OP No.1 submitted as, according to EOD of Banks the transactions made by complainant on 20.03.2017 was posted in 21.03.2017, and transaction at 10.48 PM on 21.03.2017 was posted on 22.03.2017.

 

12.   Here let us first evaluate whether this complainant had made transaction through ATM on 20.03.2017 or not?

 

13.   It is worth to note the portion of E.J. Log submitted by OP No.1 reads thus:-

“03/20/17 22:49 S1NA400168003

CARD NUMBER 5046454016800046075

TXN NO 6672

RESPONSE CODE 000

WITHDRAWAL RS.20000.00

FROM A/C 00000054029276953

MOD BAL RS.       0.00

AVAIL BAL RS.243457.28

BEML NAGAR

DATE TIME ATM ID

03/20/17    22:50         S1NA400168003

CARD NUMBER 5046454016800046075

TXN NO       6673

RESPONSE CODE 000

WITHDRAWAL      RS.20000.00

FROM A/C 00000054029276953

MOD BAL  RS.  0.00

AVAIL BAL RS.  223457.28

 

Transaction Date	Transaction no	Amount	Transaction time	Reflected in Pass book on	ATM ID
20.03.2017	6672	20000	22:49:50	21.03.17	S1NA400168003
20.03.17	6673	20000	22:50:50	21.03.17	S1A1400168003
21.03.17	3128	20000	18:06:02	21.03.17	S1NA400089001
21.03.17	5093	20000	22:48:01	22.03.17	S1NA400168002

 

On perusal of the above, it is true that, the transaction took place on 20.03.2017 with transaction ID No.6672 and another transaction No.6673 for Rs.20,000/- each, that means in total Rs.40,000/- was drawn on 20.03.2017.  Same was posted in 21.03.2017 and amount of Rs.20,000/- drawn on 21.03.2017 at 22:48 is reflected in pass-book on 22.03.2017.  Even there is no entry of the same on 20.03.2017 in pass-book, but it was seen in 21.03.2017 as in pass-book entry.  The above discussion is crystal clearly confirms with the support of E.J. Log of OP No.1.  And also Banking Ombudsman had closed the said issue by giving detailed explanation as per the letter dated: 31.07.2017.

 

14.   Therefore in view of the above discussion we come to conclusion that, the complainant might have confused with the updates of transaction and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  Accordingly we answered point (1) & (2) in the Negative.

 

POINT (3):-

15.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) & (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands dismissed with a direction to both parties to bear their own costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 20^th DAY OF MARCH 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT