By Sri. K. Mohammed Ali, President

Facts in brief:-

1. The complainant's case is that he is an account holder of the opposite party No.1 and his account number is 0047053000063030. He has availed the ATM facility of the Bank maintained by opposite party No.2 on 18-10-2012 at Mavoor Branch of South Indian Bank. While he was trying to withdraw Rs.10,000/- for his business purpose, he received only Rs.1,000/-. He further states one Mr. Sirajudheen was also present in the ATM Counter at the relevant time. He approached the opposite party No.2 and the operator of ATM had informed about the malfunctioning of ATM Machine. But to his surprise, the operator said that the equipment is not having any complaint, but the opposite party No.2 stated that it is not functioning properly. Opposite party No.2 is alleged to have issued a complaint form and directed the complainant to fill up and submit and he has done accordingly. Later on, after one week, the complainant was informed that there was no excess amount in the Bank Account and so it was happened.

2. The complainant further alleges that he had incurred heavy loss he was not able to purchase goods for his business institution, since the money was not withdrawn from the ATM.

3. The opposite parties have resisted the averments in the complaint. Maintaining account with opposite party No.1 with an ATM facility is admitted. Opposite party has not denied the fact that, on 18-10-2012, complainant has availed the ATM facility at Mavoor branch of the South Indian Bank. It is averred by opposite parties that the complaint about the functioning of the ATM was enquired by ATM help desk of the Bank and the transaction is found to be a successful transaction. Opposite parties have given all necessary support and assistance to the complainant. Later on, on tallying the accounts, it was found that on amount of Rs.8,500/- was the balance in the ATM as excess amount, but the claim of the complainant was for Rs.9,000/-. After completing all the procedure, the opposite parties have disbursed an amount of Rs.9,000/-(Rs.8,500/- from excess cash and Rs.500/- from sundries receivable account on good faith basis) tot he complainant and the complainant has received the amount in full settlement of the lost amount in the ATM Transaction complaint.

4. The opposite party No.2 denies the charge of non-co-operation by the bank authorities with respect to the aforesaid complaint raised by the complainant. Opposite party No.2 claims that the complainant was immediately referred to the bank ATM Help Desk who verified the transaction and found successful. The complainant's inability to purchase goods and consequential loss etc. are baseless. The account statement of the complainant reveals that the complainant has availed another ATM facility of opposite party's bank and withdrawn the amounts required by him and it is also seen that the account of the complainant had further cash balance which could have been availed by the complainant if it was essential.

5. The limited points involved in this complaint is as follows:-

   1. (i) Whether the opposite parties are deficient in service.

      (ii) Relief if any.

6. Point No.(i):-

   The complainant has produced the documents, which are marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant which shows that opposite party No.1 has received a complaint regarding ATM short amount Rs.9,000/-. Ext.A2 is the Form for accepting customer complaint on failed ATM transactions. Ext.A3 is the receipt issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant. Complainant has filed the chief affidavit as part of his evidence. The opposite parties have produced the documents, which are marked as Ext.B1 to B3. The Ext.B1 is the true extract of the statement of account for the period from 09-09-2012 to 26-08-2013. Ext.B2 is the Journal Print(JP) and Ext.B3 is the statement of the ATM cash account.

7. On analysing the evidence, both oral and documentary tendered by both parties we are of the view that there was a failure in the operation of ATM transaction at the relevant time and so the complainant filed a petition to the opposite party No.2 who received it, as per the document Ext.A1. Opposite parties have issued a form for accepting customer complaint on failed ATM Transaction to the complainant who has filled it up and re-submitted in the South Indian Bank.

8. The opposite party has conducted an enquiry and investigation and it was immediately referred to the Bank's ATM Help Desk. So the failure of the ATM transaction itself would amount to deficiency in service, even if it was in the initial stage and rectified subsequently. We are rejecting the plea of the complainant that he has suffered heavy monetary loss and damage due to the malfunctioning of the Machinery because, on the same day he has withdrawn Rs.5,000/- each availing another ATM facility, on two occasions, on the very same day. The Account statement of the complainant Ext.B1 reveals this facts.

9. We are taking into account the statement of the opposite parties that, after completing all procedure, the opposite party Bank has disbursed an amount of Rs.9,000/-(Rs.8,500/- from excess cash and Rs.500/- from sundries receivable account on good faith basis_ to the complainant. So an earnest attempt was made to settle the dispute by the opposite party. From 22-07-2013 onwards, the complainant was absent continuously before the Court and there was no representation. The case was, susbsequently posted to 27-08-2013, 27-09-2013, 29-10-2013, 02-12-2013, 06-01-2014, 18-02-2014, 28-03-2014, 31-03-2014, complainant was absent without any representation. So we came to the conclusion that the complainant had received Rs.9,000/- disbursed by the opposite party Bank on good faith in full settlement of the lost amount in the ATM transaction. So complainant is not interested in attending the Forum and conducting the case, inspite of reminder notice ordered by the Forum on 29-10-2013. He has not cited Sri. Sirajudheen, who was present in the ATM counter at the relevant time as an eye witness. He is the only eye witness of the incident.

10. In the light of the above discussion we are ordering the opposite parties to remove the defects in the machinery and deficient in the service in question under section 14(1(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Parties are directed to bear their costs.

Dated this 29^th day of April, 2014.

sd/-

K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT

sd/-

R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER

sd/- MINI MATHEW, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3

Ext.A1 :

Ext.A2 :

Ext.A3 :

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B3

Ext.B1 :

Ext.B2 :

Ext.B3 :

sd/-

K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT

sd/-

R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER

sd/-

MINI MATHEW, MEMBER