BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President,<br /> 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A.,LLB., Member,<br /> 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.153/2009<br /> Order dated this the 9th day of April 2010<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT/S <br /> <br /> Sri.M.P.Puttamadappa,<br /> P.S.I. West Police Station,<br /> Mandya City.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.G.K.Shivakumar., Advocate)<br /> <br /> -Vs-<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY/S<br /> <br /> The Manager, <br /> State Bank of India,<br /> Mandya City.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.B.S.Arya., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Date of complaint 10.12.2009<br /> Date of service of notice to<br /> Opposite party 22.12.2009<br /> Date of order 09.04.2010<br /> Total Period 3 Months 17 Days<br /> Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Sri.Siddegowda,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party Bank for a direction to rectify the difference in the S.B. Account and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the delay. <br /> 2. The case of the Complainant is that he is the Account holder of the Opposite party Bank in S.B. Account No. 10633657043 and used to transact and even the salary cheque deposit. On 06.04.2009, the salary of March amounting to Rs.10,405/- was deposited through cheque and earlier there was Rs.541/- in his account and then on 07.04.2009 Rs.4,720/- was deducted for the loan and there was balance of Rs.6,226/-. But, on 08.04.2009 when he went to draw the amount through ATM, he found that there was only balance of Rs.226/- as per the ATM slip. Then, he enquired the staff of the Opposite party and they told that on 06.01.2009 Complainant was drawn Rs.6,000/-. But, the complainant has not drawn any amount, since there was only Rs.4,860/- in his account. Even in the pass book, there is no such entry. On 11.04.2009, the Complainant gave a petition to the Opposite party about the difference in the amount. But, the Opposite party has not taken any action to rectify by negligence and irresponsibility. Then, the Complainant personally approached, but they went on postponing to rectify. Thereafter, on 06.06.2009 the Opposite party gave untenable reply stating that on 06.01.2009 there is information in Bombay ATM Center about the drawing of Rs.6,000/-, but, it is false and Complainant has not drawn the amount. In fact, the Opposite party has rectified when the customer T.Channappa and K.N.Siddaraju approached the Opposite party Bank about the difference in the account. Then, the Complainant got issued a legal notice on 28.10.2009, but the Opposite party has not reply. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint. <br /> 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the Complainant is a customer having S.B. Account and a holder of ATM Card and the salary of the Complainant is being credited in the Complainant Account. The other facts in the complaint are all false. His salary for the month of March was deposited. The Complainant has availed personal loan of Rs.80,000/- on 08.08.2008 from this Bank of which Rs.4,720/- being the monthly installment recovered every month from his S.B.Account. If the monthly installment towards the loan due the amount remaining will be hold by the computer (Core Banking Solution) on the due date and once the credit comes to his S.B. Account, the CBS system will appropriate the amount to the loan account. This is the automatic function of CBS with standing instructions to recover the installment amount of loan every month. On 06.01.2009, the monthly installment of Rs.4,720/- was due towards the loan account and on the same day, the Complainant has drawn Rs.6,000/- from his S.B. account through A.T.M., though there was hold of Rs.4,720/- due towards the loan account. As per the standard procedure of the bank, the amount which has been drawn has not being debited to the Complainant’s account, for the reason that there was insufficient balance in the S.B. account and the same will be shown in the bank account number and entry of Rs.6,000/- was found in the account on 06.01.2009. As they cannot create a holder of savings bank account, they have to create a separate overdraft in the name of the customer for such an amount and recover the same as and when the amount is credited to his S.B. Account. On 06.01.2009, the Complainant tried to withdraw Rs.6,000/- from A.T.M. there was a balance in the account (as ATM ignores the hold towards monthly installments of loan) and the A.T.M. allowed him drawing of Rs.6,000/-. But, when in CBS the hold of Rs.4,720/- towards loan account was considered by CBS system and the balance available after such hold was insufficient to pay Rs.6,000/-. The amount could not be debited to his savings Bank account and the same was debited to bank account, whereas A.T.M. cash disbursed, but the customers account not debited. At the branch are supposed to monitor this office account and recover the amount from S.B. Account of the customer. They could not recover the amount from the said customer till 31.03.2009 (Annual closer of Bank books). They have to create an overdraft in the name of the customer for the outstanding amount and reverse the debit transaction in the office account on 09.04.2009, when the salary of the Complainant was credited to his S.B. Account, they could recover Rs.6,000/- and an entry can be found on that day in the account. The Journal Log Print clearly shows that the Complainant has drawn Rs.6,000/- through A.T.M. and the transaction is successful with an indication of “000” in the account extract. But, the amount drawn does not appear in S.B. Account on 06.01.2009 as the same was not debited to the account, because of hold of Rs.4,720/- towards monthly installments of the loan. The withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- was debited to the Bank Office account, which is to be reversed manually. Due to the pattern of working of ATM, the Complainant has mistaken though he has drawn Rs.6,000/- on 06.01.2009. But, now claiming that he has not drawn the amount contrary to the accounts. There is no difference in the S.B. Account of the Complainant as alleged. The Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint is to be dismissed with costs.<br /> 4. During trial, the Complainant is examined and has produced Ex.C.1 to C.6. On behalf of the Opposite party two witnesses are examined and Ex.R.1 to R.6 are produced.<br /> 5. At the time of hearing, the Complainant and counsel did not appear. But, Opposite party advocate has filed written arguments.<br /> 6. We have perused the records.<br /> 7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:-<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant has drawn Rs.6,000/- through A.T.M. on 06.01.2009?<br /> 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service?<br /> 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought?<br /> 8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:-<br /> 9. POINTS NO.1 TO 3:- The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that the Complainant is the Consumer of the Opposite party Bank for having S.B. Account No.10633657043 and he has also having A.T.M. facility and he was used to transact in the Opposite party Bank in his account and his salary is being deposited in his S.B. Account. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant has also drawn personal loan of Rs.80,000/- on 08.08.2008 and monthly installment is Rs.4,720/- and it is being deducted from his S.B. Account by the Opposite party Bank. According to the Complainant, there is balance of Rs.541/- in his account, when the salary of Rs.10,405/- for the month of March was credited on 06.04.2009 and totally the balance was Rs.10,946/- and out of that on 07.04.2009 Rs.4,720/- was deducted towards the loan there must be balance of Rs.6,226/-. On 08.04.2009, when he went to draw the amount through A.T.M., the A.T.M. slip as per Ex.C.1 revealed that there was balance of only Rs.226/- and when he enquired, the Bank Officials informed the Complainant has withdrawn Rs.6,000/- on 06.01.2009 through ATM. But, the contention of the Complainant is that he has not drawn any amount through A.T.M. and contended that there is no such entry in his pass book. The Complainant has produced Ex.C.6 the copy of the pass book only from 04.03.2009. But, according to the Opposite party, the Complainant actually drawn Rs.6,000/- on 06.01.2009 through A.T.M. and the Journal Log Print with regard to ATM operations clearly shows the same, but the amount drawn does not appear in S.B. Account on 06.01.2009 as the same was not debited to the account, because of hold of Rs.4,720/- towards monthly installments. If there is hold, if the balance in the S.B. Bank account is sufficient to pay the amount requested in the ATM, the machine allows withdrawal and monitors for any holds for standing instructions later. If there is a hold and the balance available in the account after the amount towards the hold is not sufficient their office account will be debited to the square of the A.T.M. withdrawal and overdraft account cannot be created in S.B. Account. Therefore, the Bank Officials have to create a separate overdraft in the name of the customer for such an account and recover the same as and when the sufficient amount is credited to his S.B. Account. When the Complainant tried to withdraw Rs.6,000/- on 06.01.2009 from A.T.M., there was sufficient balance in the account as ATM ignores the hold towards the monthly installment of loan and the A.T.M. allowed him drawing Rs.6,000/-. Later the said Rs.6,000/- interest was debited to S.B. Account of the Complainant and therefore, the account is correct. The Complainant has gave a letter as per Ex.C.2 and Opposite party issued reply as per Ex.C.3. How the account is operated along with the extract of transaction slip Ex.C.4. Then, the Complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.C.5. Ex.C.6 in the extract of pass book shows, the account from 13.10.2008 and it does not shown the withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- through A.T.M. by the Complainant on 06.01.2009, but shows deduction of loan installments of Rs.4,720/- and only on 24.03.2009 there is an entry of “Set Hold” Rs.6,000/-. R.W.2 in his evidence has admitted that due to connectivity problem, even though there is no sufficient amount in the S.B. Account, the A.T.M. machine could disburse the amount. he has also admitted that in some cases. Even though, there is sufficient amount in his account while drawing the amount through A.T.M. without disbursing of the amount entry would come in the slip about the disbursal of the amount, but it is due to connectivity problem.<br /> 10. Even though, the Complainant has referred the case of one Sundararajan. But as per Ex.C.6 though there was withdrawal of Rs.3,000/- in A.T.M., but the A.T.M. machine shows the withdrawal at two times of the same amount. So it was rectified again on the basis of the A.T.M. Journal. But, in the present case, the Opposite party has proved by producing Ex.R.4 about the withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- through A.T.M on 06.01.2009 and the reasons why it was not debited in his account, specifically for saying that in CBS system there is a hold in the S.B. account for the loan installment. But, the A.T.M will ignore the hold on system for the loan installment, but it disbursed the cash if there is sufficient amount in the account. It cannot be said that the holder of the account has been created by the bank officials in order to knock of the amount from the S.B account of the Complainant. Ex.R.5 shows the bank office account and it shows that on 06.01.2009, the account number of the Complainant is shown about the clearance in the A.T.M. In Ex.C.2, the Complainant questioned the entries on 07.04.2009, but he has not questioned why there was an entry on 24.03.2009 about set hold of Rs.6,000/- as per Ex.C.6 his passbook entry. The Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the Opposite party as proved that the Complainant has withdrawn Rs.6,000/- through A.T.M on 06.01.2009. But, it was not reflected in S.B. accounts, because of CBS system and holder of account and it was only reflected in Financial year end of the Bank and the Complainant has not made out grounds to prove that the entries in his passbook are in correct and Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for.<br /> 11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order;<br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 9th day of April 2010).<br /> <br /> (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)