IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of April, 2016
Filed on 06.03.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.72/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. M.K. Samuel 1. State Bank of India
Manackal Veedu Venmoni, Venmoni P.O.
Venmoni P.O., Chengannur Chengannur, Alappuzha
Alappuzha – 689 509 (By Adv. C. Parameswaran)
2. South Indian Bank
Mavelikara
(By Adv. Ommen Thomas)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant had a pension account in SBI Venmony branch. In order to purchase a motor cycle from Mavelikara, complainant tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of South Indian Brnach, Mavelikara. But he did not receive the amount. Then he purchased the bike by borrowing money from others. While verifying the bank account he came to know that Rs.10,000/- was debited from his account. Even though he complained to the opposite parties there was no result. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.10,000/- with interest and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
Complainant is an accountholder of opposite party bank and provided with an ATM card for enabling the withdrawal of cash from the account. The complainant was frequently using the ATM for withdrawal and on 30.12.2013 he made a successful withdrawal through the second opposite party ATM. Complainant had complained to the opposite party that Rs.10,000/- was not received by him. The opposite party has verified the journal transaction and found the withdrawal as successful. Opposite party is not liable to pay the amount. The CCTV footage is not within the reach of this opposite party and the same is within absolute control of the second opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
3. The version of the second opposite party is as follows:-
Using ATM card of SBI, the complainant made an operation for Rs.10,000/- and received the card. Also he did another transaction for Rs.10,000/- using his Federal Bank ATM card. The second transaction was unsuccessful and so the second opposite party credited Rs.10,000/- to the card issuing bank the Federal Bank Ltd. As per the journal, the transaction done using the ATM card of the first opposite party was successful. The cash tally report reveals that there was no excess cash in ATM on the said date 30.12.2013. The allegation that the second opposite party had not given CCTV footage to the first opposite party against their demand is false. The second opposite party had taken the inbuilt camera photos through which images are taken in a gap of 3 seconds. The said inbuilt footage is very clear that the operation was successful. The second opposite party had not installed CCTV at the ATM on the alleged date. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. The second opposite party was examined RW1. One witness was examined as RW2. The documents produced from the second opposite party were marked as Exts.B1 to B5.
5. The points for considerations are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. Complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of second opposite party by using the ATM card of first opposite party. But he did not get the amount. Thereafter he came to see that Rs.10,000/- was deducted from his account. Complainant produced his account statement from the SBI Venmoni Branch during the period from 2.12.2013 to 31.12.2013 which marked as Ext.A1. Since he has not received the amount, he made complaints before the two opposite parties. Copy of the complaint before the first opposite party dated 30.11.2013 is produced and marked as Ext.A2. According to the first opposite party, the complainant was frequently using the ATM for withdrawal and on 30.12.2013 he made a successful withdrawal through the second opposite party ATM. According to the second opposite party as per the journal the transaction done using the ATM of the first opposite party was successful and there was no excess cash in ATM on the said date. In order to prove this contention, second opposite party produced Ext.B1 the journal printing, Ext.B2 the Cash Tally Report and Ext.B3 the reconciliation report. As per Ext.B1 the complainant had done 3 other transaction with the same ATM and the said transactions rejected with response code 061. It is pertinent to notice that no such contentions raised by opposite party in the version, while cross examining the complainant also he was not asked any question about the 3 unsuccessful transactions alleged to be done by him. Even though the complainant demanded CCTV footage the second opposite party did not provide it. Ext.A7 is the request made by first opposite party to the second opposite party to provide video footage and ATM journal of the transactions to the complainant. According to the second opposite party, since they have not installed CCTV at the ATM on 3012.2013, they cannot produce the same. At the same time they stated that they had taken the inbuilt camera photo through which images are taken in a gap of 3 seconds. But it was not produced. So it is the bounden duty of the second opposite party to produce those photos in the absence of CCTV footage. The Hon’ble State Commission in appeal No.398/14 stated that customer service department of Reserve Bank of India issued a communication to National Payment Corporation of India issuing guidelines to all member banks to make provision in the customer complaint for request for CCTV/Camera images. Thus in the instant case it is the burden of the second opposite party to produce CCTV footage or Camera images in respect of the transaction of the complainant to prove that Rs.10,000/- was dispensed to the complainant “Relying the decision reported in CPJ 2015 Volume 3 page 136 of Hon’ble National Commission, the opposite party was deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not making available a copy of CCTV footage to the complainant.” In the absence of such evidence, the opposite party is precluded from stating that the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- .
In the result, complaint is allowed. The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with 8% interest from 3012.2013 till realization to the complainant. The second opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. Since the primary relief is granted no further amount as compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Samuel (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Statement of a/c from 1.3.2013 to 9.7.2015 (2 pages)
Ext.A2 - Copy of the letter 30.1.2014
Ext.A3 - Copy of the letter 20.9.2014
Ext.A4 - Letter dated 19.2.2014
Ext.A5 - Copy of the email dated 19.2.2014
Ext.A6 - Copy of the complaint details
Ext.A7 - Copy of the email dated 30.1.2014
Ext.A8 - Letter dated 5.4.2014 from Ombudsman
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sreelal.B. (Witness)
RW2 - Aijou George Mathe (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Certified copy of entry of original data of accounts stored in the
Computer system of South Indian Bank
Ext.B2 - Cash Tally Report
Ext.B3 - Copy of Interbank reconciliation report
Ext.B4 - Copy of ATM statement for South Indian Bank
Ext.B5 - Tax Invoice for Rs.66,987
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
