IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> <br /> CC 331/09 DATED 30.10.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri Jaison Androos, No.HIG-61, G-1, KHB, Belavadi Post, Mysore-19.<br /> <br /> (By Sri D.S. Shivaprakash, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vijayanagara, Mysore-17.<br /> <br /> (By Sri Harisha K.P Advcoate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 02.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 24.09.2009<br /> Date of order : 30.10.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 6 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party seeking a direction to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs.25,000/-, wrongly debited amount and further a sum of Rs.25,000/- damages towards mental agony, in addition to it cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant is the customer of opposite party having S.B account No: 020014943145. The opposite party has provided ATM card to the complainant for withdrawal of the amount from the said account. Card No: is 62201805190. Using ATM card on 18.03.2009 the complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from his account through SBM, branch Hoottagally. Since the machine had problem the complainant was not able to withdraw the amount. Even though the complainant did not withdraw the amount through ATM card from his S.B account, the opposite party has debited a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant complained the same to the opposite party in writing on 18.06.2009. The complainant also complained to Ombudsman and then after 127 days, the opposite party has credited Rs.25,000/- in the account of the complainant. Due to the said act of the opposite party, the complainant financially suffered lot. The said act of the opposite party is due to negligence, which amounts to deficiency in service. Though the opposite party credited Rs.25,000/- into the account of the complainant, interest there on has not been credited. The complainant suffered mentals and monetarily. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party filed the version alleging that the complaint is false, baseless and unlawful. It is stated, averments made in para 3 of the complaint are made for wrongful gain. It is contended that the ATM machine governed by satellite direction. There will be no man handling. Since satellite showed withdrawal of Rs.25,000/-, there was deduction in the account of the complainant. The ATM machine through which the complainant tried to withdraw the amount is of SBM and not of opposite party. Hence, if at all the complainant has any grievance, it should be against SBM. Also it is stated that on the appeal of the complainant before the Ombudsman, after enquiry, the opposite party has re-deposited the amount and as such, there is no question of negligence. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, officer of the opposite party also has filed his affidavit in support of the contention taken in the version. We have heard both the learned advocates and perused the entire materials on record.<br /> <br /> 5. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in affirmative <br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The grievance of the complainant is that on 18.03.2009, he tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/- from his S.B account through ATM card, but he did not get the amount, is not disputed by the opposite party. Further grievance of the complainant is that, in spite of the fact that actually he did not withdraw any amount on the said date the opposite party debited a sum of Rs.25,000/0 in the account of the complainant. This fact is also not denied by the opposite party. Hence, it has been established that even though there was no withdrawal of any amount by the complainant, the opposite party debited a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the account of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. On the very next day, the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party in writing, copy of which is on page 9 of the documents of the complainant. Despite the said complaint the opposite party did not rectify the mistake. Then the complainant complainted to the Ombudsman, copy of which is at page 10 of the documents of the complainant. On page 11 letter that the complainant received from the Ombudsman is produced. Thereafter the opposite party credited a sum of Rs.25,000/- into the account of the complainant. For this, the complainant thanked the opposite party through the letter, copy of which is at page 12 and further requested to pay compensation as stipulated by RBI and also towards hardship and mental agony. That has not been complied with by the opposite party and there is no reply also.<br /> <br /> 9. Despite the admitted facts refereed to above, the opposite party in the version has contend that the complaint is false frivolous, baseless and unlawful. In fact said contention is false and baseless. Then it is contend by the opposite party that the complainant tried to withdraw the amount from ATM machine maintained by SBM. In this regard, there cannot be any dispute that there is net work amongst various banks. Apart from that, as could be seen from the direction of RBI, it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to pay compensation to the complainant and if at all SBM is liable for not properly maintaining the ATM machine, then the opposite party may recover that amount from SBM. More over even though the complainant did not withdraw any amount on the said date, let it be ATM machine maintained by SBM, the amount is debited by the opposite party. For this amongst other reasons we found no substance in contention of the opposite party that the complainant could have sued the SBM.<br /> <br /> 10. The opposite party deny negligence, contending that it has re-deposited the amount into the account of the complainant. That is admitted by the complainant also. But the complainant contend that, it is only after 127 days. At the outset even though no amount was withdrawn by the complainant from the account, debiting Rs.25,000/- in the account of the complainant is negligence on the part of the opposite party and certainly it amounts to deficiency in service. Further more on the very next day itself, the complainant had given written complaint to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not attend to the said complaint. In the month of June, the complainant had to approach Banking Ombudsman with a complaint. As stated by the opposite party itself, after holding enquiry, ultimately the opposite party credited the amount into the account of the complainant. Certainly, this goes to show utter negligence and irresponsibility on the part of the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 11. Advocate of the complainant has placed on record, the letter of RBI dated 11.02.2009. We feel it not necessary to narrate the entire contents of the letter. It is suffice to note that by the said letter RBI directed of the banks to reimburse the amount within 12 days from the date of receipt of the complaints of the customers. This letter was a reminder to the banks to earlier letter. One more letter dated 17.07.2009 of the RBI addressed to various bank Authorities is produced, wherein it is stated that any failure to re-credited the amount within 12 working days, the banks shall pay compensation of Rs.100/- per day to the aggrieved customer. In spite of this direction of RBI, apart from the complaint of the complainant, opposite party failed and neglected to credit the amount into the account of the complainant, which was wrongly debited.<br /> <br /> 12. Now, as to the claim of the complainant towards interest, he has claimed 18% interest for the period of wrong debiting the amount till it was credited. So also the complainant has claimed damages amounting to Rs.25,000/-. The RBI has directed the bank to pay compensation of Rs.100/- per day. Considering these facts, we feel it not just to award interest as well as compensation. The complainant has alleged delay of 127 days in crediting the amount. But it appears the days are less than 127 days, because, firstly, 12 working days as directed by the RBI have to be deducted. More over, the exact date on which the opposite party has credited the amount is not available on record. However, it must be after the complainant complained to Ombudsman i.e., on 18.06.2009. Hence, the days may be at least more than three months. Taking 90 days as per the RBI direction per day Rs.100/- compensation would be Rs.9,000/-. In addition to it, it is relevant to note that, the complainant had to approach Ombudsman to get his grievance redressed and the opposite party simply re-credited the amount and in spite of the direction of the RBI did not pay compensation. Ultimately, complainant had to approach this Forum. More over, it is relevant to note that in the version the opposite party had contend that the complaint is false frivolous, baseless and unlawful. Unfortunately, that fact has also been stated by the officer of the opposite party on oath in his affidavit. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, awarding compensation of Rs.12,000/- will meet the hands of justice.<br /> <br /> 13. Accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 14. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.12,000/- compensation to the complainant within a month from the date of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate 12% p.a.<br /> 3. Further the opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 30th October 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar. J)<br /> Member<br /> <br />