BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 19/2008 against C.C.  39/2007,   Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy

Between:

State Bank of India

Rep. by its Branch Manager

NFC Branch, Mallapuram

ECIL Post, Hyderabad-62.                           ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Opposite Party                                                                          And

Gera Ravi Kumar

S/o. Late Jaya Rao

Age:  42 years, Service

H.No. 7-151/2, EC-5101

Kamalanagar, ECIL Post

Hyderabad-500 062.                                   ***                         Respondent/       

                                                                                                Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. Deepak Bhattacharjee

Counsel for the Resp:                                  M/s. G. Uday Kumar.

CORAM:

                         HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

  SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

   &

                                        SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN                                                                                               

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party  State Bank of India (SBI) against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay  Rs. 4,000/- with interest together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs.

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that he had an ATM card facility with the appellant bank as he  was having a savings bank account with it.    While so as on   15.11.2006 there was a balance of Rs. 1,378/- in his account.  When he tried to draw Rs. 500/- on 18.11.2006 at 10 p.m.,   at NFC ATM centre the ATM displayed it was unable to process.   Believing that there was some technical problem he tried again at   ATM centre, Tarnaka, however the same display was made.    There upon he got a doubt and obtained mini statement  wherein  he  found  that  there  was  minus  balance  of  Rs. 621/-.     

On that he approached the ATM clerk on 21.11.2006 on which the clerk showed that he withdrew Rs. 2,000/- on 4.8.2004,  therefore the amount was adjusted.    On that he produced his pass book and showed that he did not withdraw any amount as alleged by the bank.   He also verified the account with the bank for the period 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 where the so called withdrawal on 4.8.2004 was not shown.   When he sought for rectification even with the Branch Manager, the bank came up with a fresh plea that he had withdrawn Rs. 2,000/- on two occasions viz., on 4.8.2004 and   on 5.4.2005.  On that he gave a written complaint.  The bank had confirmed that he had withdrawn Rs. 2,000/- each on 4.8.2004 and 5.4.2005.   Thereupon he obtained another statement of account wherein the above said withdrawals were not shown.    It revealed that the bank had set-hold the said amount on 4.12.2006 and transferred an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to ATM extension without any information.   Since the accounts are made  on line  and computerized  there could not be  transfer of amount to the  ATM not reflected in the account maintained,  amounting to deficiency in service and therefore he sought  payment of Rs. 4,000/- with interest  @ 12% p.a., besides compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs.

3)                Though the appellant engaged an advocate it  did not choose to file its written version nor let in any evidence controverting   the affidavit evidence of the complainant and Exs. A1 to A6. 

4)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant did not withdraw Rs. 2,000/- each on 4.8.2004 and 5.4.2005 evidenced from Ex. A1 pass book entries and Ex.  A2 mini-statement issued by the very bank.    The notice issued was returned unclaimed evidenced under Ex. A6 showing their dis-inclination to give any reply.    Therefore the Dist. Forum directed the appellant bank to pay Rs. 4,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., together with compensation and costs of Rs. 2,000/- each.

5)                Aggrieved by the said decision the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.   No amount was collected for the entire serviced rendered and therefore it is not a consumer dispute.    There is no liability for them to pay compensation besides costs.

6)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

7)                The complainant aggrieved by two entries of withdrawals of  Rs. 2,000/- each on 4.8.2004  and 5.4.2005  without he having withdrawn the amounts  laid the complaint alleging that despite  repeated demands to correct the entries  the bank did not do so amounting to deficiency in service and therefore sought for repayment of the amount together with  compensation and costs.   Admittedly the bank has been issuing computerized statements in the savings bank pass book Ex. A1 wherein the above withdrawals were not shown.    Admittedly when he tried to withdraw Rs. 500/- on 18.11.2006 he got a reply ‘sorry unable to process’ vide Ex. A2.  When he obtained mini-statement it was shown minus balance of Rs. 621.03.  When he questioned about the discrepancy the bank could not give any explanation except stating that all the ATM transactions are handled from Mumbai and they were clueless on the subject.    A registered legal notice giving details of the transactions was returned unclaimed vide Ex. A6 returned cover.   There is no explanation as to why registered noticed tendered to it was returned.    Even when the complaint was filed before the Dist. Forum except engaging an advocate it could not give any reply as to the discrepancy pointed out by the complainant.    For the first time in the appeal they have enclosed J.P. log copy Ex. B1, ATM transactions as per switch database not posted in branch Ex. B2, and statement of account from 1.11.2006 to 31.12.2006 Ex. B3.    No explanation was given why the same was not reflected either in the mini-statement or the statement of account furnished to the complainant by the very bank or in the pass book.   They could not have missed.  The bank did not file any affidavit  explaining  this discrepancy.  

8)                The complainant an NFC employee has been asserting  that he did not withdraw Rs. 2,000/-  which the bank could not dispute which  is evidenced under Ex. A2 mentioning  ‘sorry unable to process’.  The bank could not have deducted Rs. 2,000/-.   Obviously thinking that  he had withdrawn  Rs. 2,000/- and the said amount was paid to him forgetting the fact that  Ex. A2 clearly reveals that  the amount could not be delivered as the ATM  did not process the said transaction.    It is unfortunate that the appellant a reputed bank did not try to settle the issue when repeated requests were made.  If such transaction is registered somewhere,  not in the ATM  it cannot be said that the complainant had withdrawn the amount.   When the computer was  functioning  erratic and could not register the amounts, the bank  cannot turn round and contend that the complainant could withdraw the amount when  their own receipts show that the transaction was not processed.    Apart from it that the very mini-statement shows that there was minus balance of Rs. 621.03 evidently false,  as he was having Rs. 1378.97 by then evidenced under entries in pass book Ex. A1.    It is unfortunate that the bank without considering the documents filed by the complainant tried to justify the action   on wrong entries made in J.P. Log copy.  The said transaction was not shown simultaneous in the account copies furnished to the complainant.   The complainant by filing Ex. A2 had proved beyond doubt that the ATM did not faithfully register the claims which made the bank to deduct Rs. 4,000/- by way of two entries.    It is unfortunate that the bank though doing financial services turned round,  and contend that this is not a consumer dispute as  services are rendered free.  The entries in the pass book undoubtedly show that the service charges are collected periodically. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the bank has been collecting   ATM annual fee of Rs. 50/-evidenced from the entries in Ex. A3.  Therefore the contention that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction is absolutely without any basis.   

9)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record has directed payment of amount rightly.    Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in   United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kantika Colour Lab reported in  2010 (6) SCC 449    opined that interest @ 12% could be awarded as per the rate of interest prevailing at that time.   Since the bank did not respond to any of the claims made by the complainant repeatedly amounting to deficiency in service and rightly awarded the compensation to be paid by the bank which is modest and reasonable.   The order of the Dist. Forum needs no modification.    There are no merits in the appeal.

10)              In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER

3)      ________________________________

 MEMBER

                                                                                      Dt. 20. 09. 2010.

*pnr