BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri P.V.Nageswara Rao , M.A.LL.M., President(FAC)
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Thursday the 13th day of August, 2009
C.C. 175/08
Between:
Golla Dasari Madduleti, S/o. G.Subbaiah,
H.No. 7/84, Raja Street, Atmakur-518422 … Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India, Represented by its Branch Manager,
H.No.7/333, Besides police Station, Atmakur-518422. ….Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudharshan , Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri.B.Pullaiah , Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. M. Krishna Reddy, Male Member)
C.C.No. 175/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/s 11 and 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 , seeking a direction on the opposite party for the payment of an amount of Rs.5500/- along with interest from the date of its transfer into bank account , Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the case.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is having savings bank account with ATM facility in the opposite party bank . His S.B.A/c. No. is 01190013442 , and has availed loan from the opposite party bank. He has given standing instructions for recovery of Rs.1700/- every month. A sum of Rs.5575/- was deposited on 20-05-2006 to his account by way of transfer. On the same day the opposite party withdrew Rs.5100/- to adjust three monthly installments at Rs1700/- each which remained unpaid of complainant’s loan account. The cash balance of Rs. 837.30 remained in the complainant’s account on 20-05-2006 . The complainant received an intimation dated 09-10-2006 from the bank intimating that a sum of Rs.4,000/- was debited to his account to update part of the ATM transactions dated 21-05-2006 and 22-05-2006 in which he has withdrawn the above said amounts. Agreed by the said intimation the complainant approached the opposite party and denied his withdrawl of two amounts from ATM and requested him to refund the same. As there was no response from opposite party , the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party and as the opposite party did not respond, he was constrained to file the complaint seeking appropriate reliefs.
3. Pursuant to the receipt of the notice of this forum , the opposite party made its appearance through its counsel and contested the case by filling written version denying the liability to the complainant’s claim and seeking dismissal of the complaint.
4. The opposite party in his written version resisted the claim of the complainant and the defence set out in brief is as follows ,
The opposite party has stated that the events that were taken place at relevant time is that the complainant has a balance of Rs.362.30 on 02-05-2006 . A deposit of Rs.5575/- was made in to his account on 20-05-2006. The end balance for the day was Rs.5937.30 as on 20-05-2006. The complainant has drawn Rs.4,000/- on 21-05-2006 and Rs.1500/- on 22-05-2006 during night hours at ATM centre of Nandikotkur . Further the opposite party submits that as the complainant had given standing instructions for recovery of Rs.1700/- every month , the 3 installments of loan which were due to the bank , amounting to Rs.5100/- were recovered first as part of ‘start of the day’ operations leaving Rs.837.30 as balance in the complainant’s account and during that period the ATM transactions of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1500/- could not be updated as sufficient balance was not available and were debited to the banks system suspense account. While reconciling the system account , the said ATM transactions were detected , the position was explained to the complainant and taking his oral consent , the ATM transactions debited to banks system suspense account were reversed and debited to complainant account. The opposite party also intimated these facts to the complainant through his letter dated 09-10-2006.
Therefore the opposite party seeks dismissal of the case as the claim of complainant is false and there is no deficiency of service.
5. In pursuance of the contentions the complainant has taken reliance on documentary record viz., (1) the bank pass book of complainant with its entries , (2) letter of intimation dated 09-10-2006 of opposite party ,(3) legal notice issued to opposite party along with its acknowledgement , (4) letter of opposite party dated 08-12-2006 admitting technical failure in the system of bank , besides the sworn affidavit of the complainant . The above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A4 to substantiate his case.
6. In support of the case the opposite party filed the following documents viz., (1) bank statement of the complainants account obtained from the primary source of the bank ,(2) copy of his letter dated 08-12-2006 , (3) relative journal printer report of ATM at Nandikotkur , (4) the users manual , besides his sworn affidavit. The above mentioned documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B4 in reiteration of its defence.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency on the part of the opposite party sustaining its liability to the complainants claim.
8. Ex.A1 is the bank pass book of complainant with its entries. The reliance of the entries of pass book by the complainant and the denial of any effect of the said entries by the opposite party do not assure much importance , since the primary source of the entries made or not made is with the bank.
9. The Ex.A2 is the letter of opposite party dated 09-10-2006 is the intimation of the deduction of Rs.4,000/- on 08-10-2006 to the complainant . The deduction made by opposite party justified on the plea that that there was technical reason. If there was technical reason , the opposite party should have referred to such other similar instances affected by technical reasons at that time. The technical reason can not be correlated to only these transactions.
10. The Ex.A3 legal notice along with acknowledgement claims the refund of amounts mistakely debited from his account.
11. The Ex.A4 is the letter of opposite party dated 08-12-2006 admits technical failure of the system in the bank in not updating transactions during that period . It claims ATM transactions successful since the response code in the ATM receipt is ‘000’ . It is not disputed by opposite party.
12. The Ex.B1 is the bank statement of complainant account generated from primary source of the bank , mentions the transfer of Rs.5575/- to his SB account and thre debits of Rs.1700/- each to complainant loan account on 20-05-2006 and the supposed disputed debits of Rs.4,000/- on 07-10-2006 and Rs.1500/- on 12-10-2006 . It infuses suspicion is apparent that the updation of standing instructions has been carried out in the main server on 20-05-2006 and not from the standby server on the next day.
13. The Ex.B3 is the relative journal printer report of ATM at Nandikotkur contains two ATM transactions withdrawing Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1500/- from complainant account on 21-05-2006 at 9-14 hours and 20 -45 hours with response code ‘000’ . The complainant questioned the operation of ATM since the available balance was Rs. 837-30 in his account during that period.
14. The contention of the complainant is that withdrawing of Rs.4,000/- on 21-05-2006 and Rs.1500/- on 22-05-2006 through ATM can not be made since the available balance as per Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 is Rs.837.30 only during that period . Before transferring the amounts Ex.B1 by opposite party from complainants account he should have been intimated about ATM withdrawals and more so when admittedly system was technically fault in its operation. It is also not convincing that opposite party has taken 5 months after to transfer the amounts after detecting defaefect and during this long period there was sufficient money in his account from which the deductions could have been made. The bank should have inform the complainant soon after the technical defect was noticed before actual deduction was made. The intimation only after deduction Ex.A2 shows that decided unilaterally.
15. The contention of opposite party about the details of working of servers in the system of bank , the sequential operation in the updation of transactions and the technical reasons in the belated updation of the present disputed transactions were not supported by any cogent documentary material by opposite party.
16. The totality of the circumstance is clear that the action of the bank in dealing the whole transactions clearly establishes deficiency of service.The amount with hold by the bank must also carry interest since that bank had the advantage of user of such money during that period.
17. In view of what is stated above the forum holds that the complainant has established all the facts entitling him to receive the compensation under different heads as claimed by him.
18. For the reasons set out above the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,500/- (Rs.4,000 / + Rs.1500) with interest @ 6% p.a from date of deduction Rs.1,000/- for mental agony and Rs.500/- towards cost with in 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In default , the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% interest from the date of default till realization .
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 13th day of August, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC) MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. pass book of complainant.
Ex.A2. Letter dated 09-10-2006 of opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A4. Reply of opposite party to Ex.A3 dated 08-12-2006
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested Xerox copy of account statement of Golla
Dasari Maddileti with State Bank of India in 4 papers.
Ex.B2. Attested Xerox letter of OP to the complainant dated 08-12—2006.
Ex.B3. Attested Xerox copy of ATM transactions dated 21-05-2006 in 2 papers.
Ex.B4. Users manual (printed ) SBI ATM / debit card.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC) MALE MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
