D.O.F  –  20-06-2013

                                          D.O.O  –  17-12-2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

      Present:    Sri.Roy Paul                        :        President

                               Smt.Sona Jayaraman.K        :        Member

                               Sri. Babu  Sebastian             :        Member

                          Dated this  the 17^th day of December, 2014

CC.No.178/2013

Sahadevan.K.V,

Ittamal (House),                                             :          Complainant

Ezhilode (PO),

Pin – 670 309.                    

South Indian Bank Limited,

Pilathara Branch,                                         :            Opposite party

Kannur,

Pin-670501.

(Rep. by Adv. P.Anil)

                                              ORDER

Sri. Babu Sebastian, Member

This is a complainant filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act 1986 against the opposite party(herein after referred in short as opposite party),  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Praying for directing to the opposite party to refund the amount of  Rs.9,000 mishandled by the opposite party also pay   Rs.10,000 for mental agony and pay  Rs.5,000 as the cost of the litigation.

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:  The complainant contends that he is an account holder with the opposite party Bank since last 2 years and he was having debit ATM card  on 01-04-2013, the complainant visited  the ATM outlet at South Indian Bank situated at Pilathara branch for withdrawing cash.  On that day he tried to withdraw an amount of  Rs.9,000, but he could not receive the amount, again he tried some more time but the ATM machine displayed  nothing but he received slip from the ATM machine which shows, an amount of  Rs.9,000 was withdrawn from his account.  Immediately after the next day complainant went to the opposite party bank and informed the matter before opposite party’s Manager,  but opposite party informed him that there was a debit entry of   Rs.9,000 on 01-03-2013 even though he had not withdrawn the said amount of   Rs.9,000.   On enquiry with the bank officials, he was advised to lodge a complaint, hence he lodged a complaint in the head office at Trissur.  Thereafter the Technician and Engineer of the opposite party inspected the ATM but they did not answered nothing.  Hence this complaint is filed.

After receiving the complaint, Forum sent notice to opposite party, the opposite party filed version and contended that on receiving the complaint from the complainant, the matter was thoroughly investigated by the opposite party’s ATM technician and engineer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of complaint on 08-03-2013 and they had duly informed opposite party that an amount of  Rs.9,000 was dispensed by the ATM on 01-03-2013.  The opposite party further contended that, as per the account statement maintained by the opposite party on 01-04-2013 there was no withdrawal from the account of the complainant, but account statement dated 01-03-2013 of the opposite party shows that the complainant has withdrawn an amount of    Rs.9,000 through the ATM.  Therefore opposite party has no liability to pay any compensation to the complainant.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

Based on the rival pleading of the opposite party, the following issue have been taken for consideration.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite  
2.  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as   

prayed   in complaint?

1.  Relief and cost?

        The evidence consists of chief affidavit of complainant, no documents produced.  Opposite party did not adduce oral evidence, Ext. B1 to B6 marked on the side of the opposite party.

Issues 1 to 3:

On perusing the pleading of both parties along with documents and affidavit evidence placed before us, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant is an account holder with the opposite party’s Bank since last 2 years and he was having debit ATM card.  Now the main allegation of the complainant is that on 01-04-2013, the complainant visited the ATM outlet of South Indian Bank situated at Pilathara branch for withdrawing cash, he tried to withdraw an amount of   Rs.9,000 but could not received the amount, he received slip from the ATM machine, seen that  Rs.9,000 withdrawn from the account.  Further on next day he lodged a complaint in opposite party bank stating that he could not get the amount only received slip of withdrawn.

Per contra, in the version of the opposite party Bank has contended that immediately after receiving the complaint from the complainant, the matter was investigated by the opposite party’s bank technician and engineer within a period of one week and they had clearly informed opposite party Bank that an amount of   Rs.9,000 was dispensed by the ATM on 01-03-2013.  In this case we should consider the actual date of withdrawal of cash.  Complainant submit that the transaction were held on 01-04-2013, as per the complaint but in version opposite party stated that there is no transaction on 01-04-2013.  The transaction were held on 01-03-2013, the complainant  denied  that the transaction was held on 01-03-2013.  There is a dispute in the dates of transaction, the complainant has not taken least care  to verify the actual dates of transaction, again complainant has filed chief affidavit stating that the transaction held on the same date i.e, 01-04-2013. In the cross examination complainant deposed that  1-03-13 ന് എന്‍റെ അക്കൗണ്ടില്‍ നിന്ന് 9,000 രൂപ പിന്‍വലിച്ച്ത് എന്ന്  പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ എനിക്ക് കൃത്യമായി ഓര്‍മ്മയില്ല. സത്യവാങ്ങമൂലത്തില്‍ 1-03-2013 ന് withdraw ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല എന്നും 1-04-13 ന് ആണ് withdraw  ചെയതത് എന്നും  പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ അത് ശരിയാണ്. എന്‍റെ account statement-ല്‍ 1-03-13 ന് withdraw ചെയ്തതായി കാണും.  This statements of the complainant shows that  he is not sure that which is the actual date and whether he received the amount from the ATM or not.  The complainant admitted in the chief affidavit that he received a withdrawal slip from the ATM, but he even not take care to produce the slip before the Forum also. Complainant did not take care to verify the dates of withdrawal slip, if it was by mistake, he has not taken care to rectify the dates even in the chief affidavit, complainant took the matter causally without giving proper consideration to the real issue of the date of transaction.  The opposite party produced document before the Forum, and it is marked as Ext. B1 to B6.  This documents proved that the pleading of the opposite party Bank is true and correct.

Keeping in view of the facts of the case, we have gone through the affidavit evidence as well as documentary placed by the parties, on it is seen that complainant failed to prove unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  Complainant failed to take efforts to prove his case, he has not produced the withdraw slip from the ATM.  Complainant miserably failed to prove his case because it is appear to be neither any negligence nor any deficiency on the part of the opposite party.  It is therefore, we are of considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any remedy.  The evidence available on record  is not sufficient enough to quantify the loss sustained by the complainant.  The issue 1 to 3 are found against complainant.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

                 Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2014.

                        Sd/-                   Sd/-        Sd/-

                      President              Member       Member

                                            APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

Nil

Exhibits  for the opposite party

B1-Account statement South Indian Bank Ltd. Dated 11-07-2013

B2-Jounal Log dated 01-03-2013

B3-Switch Log dated 01-03-2013

B4-Cash Tally report dated 02-03-2013

B5- Complainant submitted by the petitioner before the South Indian 

      Bank, Pilathara Branch dated 08-03-2012.

B6- E-mail received from Customer care cell dated 18-03-2013

Witness examined for the complainant

  Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                      // Forwarded by Order//

                                                                       SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT