Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/68/2013

Dr. M.Durvasulu Chetty S/o. Munaiah Chetty - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India,by its Branch Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

07 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                      Filing Date:-28-04-2013  

                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date:-07-01-2015.

                                         BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI.

PRESENT:- SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                                                                    SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER        

 

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH   DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

C.C.No.68/2013

Between

 Dr. M. Durvasulu Chetty, Hindu, aged 65 years,

 S/o. Munaiah Chetty, Retd. Homeopathy Medical

 Officer, residing at D. No. 8-642, Kothapeta,

 Srikalahasthi-517644, Cell: 9441632903

                                                                                                         …. Complainant

And

 State Bank of India, by its Branch Manager,

 Srikalahasthi- 517644.

.                                                                                                        …. Opposite parties

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 31.12.2014 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of  Sri G. Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.K. Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for the opposite parties and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Sections-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as the unknown culprits withdrawn an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in the account of the complainant from the ATM of opposite party as the opposite party fails to take the security measures as per the guidelines of RBI.

 

          2.The brief facts of the case are: The  complainant is  an account holder of opposite party bank bearing SB. Ac.No.30104338722 and also he is having an ATM card bearing No.6220180085100076331, on 10-7-2011 at about 12-12 noon he went to ATM-2 of opposite party bank situated at Kumaraswamy thippa of Srikalahasthi and operated the pin to know the bank balance as it was not properly responded, he moved to the next annexed ATM-3 counter and operated the ATM pin at about 12.14 noon and obtained mini statement slip and no cash was withdrawn by him. Again on 1.8.2011 he went to the ATM counter of the opposite party to ascertain the credit particulars of his pension in his S.B. Account, but surprisingly he found in the mini statement that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was debited from his S.B. Account on 10.7.2011 . On the next day he reported the matter to the opposite party bank that he was not withdrawn any amount from the ATM on 10.7.2011 as reflected in the mini statement and suspected that the said amount was withdrawn by some unknown persons and requested the opposite party bank to furnish the video clipping recorded on 10.7.2011 between 12.12 to 12.16 noon to enable him to identify the culprits. But the opposite party fails to furnish the same after his several representations and also he sort the information under the RTI Act, on 11.10.2011. Finally he referred the matter to the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad regarding the above disputed ATM transaction. The said complaint was closed by the Ombudsman on 21.11.2011 by observing that the transaction ofRs.20,000/- was successful and it was debited from the complainants account as the amount withdrawn through ATM on 10.07.2011 and also stated that as per the NCR report the video clipping was not recorded due to software problem.

           3. The complainant further stated as per the NCR report dated 10.11.2011 that the old images recorded on 10.07.2011 were deleted by 16.10.2011. Thus he was deprived of getting the video clipping information in time by the opposite party and caused unreasonable delay by which that old images were deleted. So he could not file a complaint before the police for taking action against the culprits. Thus he was put in loss of Rs.20,000/- without any recovery. It nothing but deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for not providing the safety measures to keep the amount safe in the ATM’s. Finally he caused a legal notice on 12.8.2013 calling upon the opposite party to reimburse the amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint praying this Forum to direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- which was withdrawn by the culprits  and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and for deficiency of service in not providing the video clipping in time and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

          4. The opposite party came into appearance and filed the written version by admitting that the complainant is having an S.B. Account bearing No. 30104338722  with their bank and stated that on 10.7.2011 the complainant himself operated the ATM, at first instance he tried to withdraw the amount  as he has not properly used the keys in the ATM machine the transaction was rejected then he approached the second ATM machine and obtained mini statement  and an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been with drawn from his account. As per the records available with the opposite party clearly shows that the complainant has with drawn an amount Rs.20,000/- at about 12.16 noon on 10.7.2011 in ATM centre under the transaction No. 5556. Hence he operated the transactions successfully on 10.07.2011 and also stated that  the opposite party has been maintaining a number of ATM’s to provide service to their customers they hired the services of third party i.e. M/s. NCR CORPORATION PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI to maintain the said ATM’s. The Opposite party further stated that immediately after receiving the complaint from the complainant about the disputed transaction, they registered the complaint on 11.8.2011 and after verification the opposite Party found that the said transaction done through original ATM card of the complainant and the said transaction is successful and same was intimated to the complainant. But the complainant is not satisfied with the reply given by them and submitted an application to the appellate authority of opposite party under RTI Act and same was properly complied by way of reply dated.10.11.2011 along with the documents pertaining to his transaction and also submitted the certificates given by the service provider (NCR) stating that the video clipping dated.10.7.2011 are not available with them to the complainant. Again the complainant preferred a complaint against the opposite party before Banking Ombudsman for the deficiency of service, after thorough enquiry and scrutinizing the records the Ombudsman gave observations by way of order dated: 21.11.2011, that the alleged transactions is done with the original ATM card and the said transaction is successful and there is no fault lies on the opposite party As the complainant is not satisfied with the order of Ombudsman he caused a legal notice on 12.8.2013 after  lapse of 22 months of the orders passed by the Banking Ombudsman and  the opposite party stated that immediately after receiving the complaint from the complainant they contacted the concerned authority and obtained confirmation that all transactions of the complainant is fruitful and no excess cash was found in ATM machine and the same was brought to the notice of the complainant and duly intimated that an amount of RS.20,000/- has been withdrawn by him. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant.

            5. The opposite party further submits that if really the amount was withdrawn by some culprits, what prevented him to lodge a criminal complaint to the Police Authorities against the culprits. But till today he was not made any complaint regarding the same and also stated that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be rejected. The opposite party further submits that their bank is a public sector bank they render good services to their customers and the complainant made said allegations to have wrongful gain. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

           6. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the opposite party M. Rambabu S/o.Sri.M.Seshagiri, Chief Manager filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 and B2. Both counsels have filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

           7. On the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by the both parties the points for consideration are:-

          (i). Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

          (ii).Whether the complaint is barred by limitation.

          (iii).Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for if so to what

                  extent?

          (iv).To what result?

           8. Point No:-(i). There is no dispute regarding the S.B. Account of the complainant as it was admitted by the opposite party. The main contention of the complainant is on 10.07.2011 he went to the ATM of opposite party bank and obtained mini statement of account and again on 1.8.2011 he went to the ATM and obtained the mini statement of the account i.e. under Ex.A2 by the mini statement dated.1.8.2011 he came to know that on 10.7.2011 Rs.20,000/- was debited in his account by way of ATM transaction. Hence the said transaction was disputed by him that he never withdrawn the amount of Rs.20,000/- on 10.07.2011 he operated the ATM for obtaining the mini statement only. Hence he made a complaint to the opposite party that no amount was withdrawn by him on 10.7.2011 that the said transaction  was made by unknown culprits and requesting the bank authorities to provide video coverage clipping which was recorded on 10.7.2011 in the ATM which enables him to identify the culprits. As the opposite parties has not taken any steps to furnish the video clipping he approached under the RTI Act under Ex.A4 for which the opposite parties furnished the documents i.e.Ex.A6 i)ATM log sheet  of the account of the complainant dated.10.7.2011 about the withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- with EG log sheet .ii) The copy of ATM log transaction  done   by  the complainant iii)NCR report issued by the service provider  of the opposite party  on 10.10.2011 itself and also  the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman under the Ex.A5 to resolve the matter. The Banking Ombudsman after perusing the documents on 21.11.2011 passed an order by giving findings that by inserting valid ATM card and pin by the complainant only the said amount was withdrawn. Hence the said transaction is successful. Aggrieving by the said order the complainant filed the present complaint in this Forum .By perusing the documents and evidence placed by both the parties, as far as disputed transaction is concerned as per Ex.A6. EG log sheet evidences that on 10.7.2011 the transaction no.5556 at about 12:16:27 P.M. goes to show that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn by  inserting correct pin no. it could be possible to operate only  by inserting the ATM card  issued to the complainant only. Hence we considered the same as the amount was withdrawn through the said transaction. Hence the complainant failed to place any evidence to prove his contention that he has not withdrawn the amount as contended by him regarding the disputed transaction without any cogent evidence. Hence we are of the opinion that we cannot presume that the amount was withdrawn by unknown culprits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the refund of an amount of Rs.20,000 withdrawn by some unknown persons as contended by the complainant as he failed to prove the same.

           Coming to the next  contention of the complainant that the opposite party failed to provide the video clipping which was recorded on 10.7.2011 because he made a complaint on 11.8.2011 but the opposite party furnished the copy of NCR report on 10.11.2011 under Ex.A6 the NCR report which clearly indicates that on 16.10.2011 the customer engineer of the service provider of the opposite party visited the ATM to collect the video clippings that he gave the report in remarks column: “Due to software problem in ATM software reload. Due to reloading the software old images deleted in ATM. Images are not available in ATM on 10.7.2011 due to above reasons”.  Hence by report itself clearly shows that the technical persons of the opposite party service providers visited the ATM to collect the images on 16.10.2011i.e. after the lapse of 3 months of the disputed transaction i.e.10.7.2011 and 2 months after the complaint made by the complainant to the opposite party i.e.11.8.2011 if at all the opposite party immediately would have taken steps to collect the video clipping the complainant may able to know whether any unknown person was operated the ATM at particular time, but the opposite party fail to take any initiation to do the best services to the customers. Hence as per the Ex.A12 the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (DPSS.PD.No.2631/ 02.10.002/2010-2011dt:May27.2011) banks have been mandated to resolve customer complaints within 7 working days from the date of the complaint. But in this particular case the opposite party took nearly 60days to resolve the same. Hence there is a deficiency of service on part of the opposite party to resolve the complaint of the complainant with inordinate delay..

          9.Point No:-(ii).The opposite party contended that the present complaint is barred by limitation,  but as per the contention of the complainant that he went to the ATM on 10.7.2011 to obtain the mini statement only, but on the same  day the disputed transaction was occurred. But the said fact was came to the knowledge of the complainant on 10.8.2011 when he went to the ATM to ascertain the pension particulars in the mini statement. The complainant made a complaint to the opposite party on 11.8.2011 itself to furnish the video clipping and the documents pertaining to the disputed transaction. . But the opposite party furnished the said particulars to the complainant on 10.11.2011 when the complainant approached through RTI Act .Hence the limitation starts from the date i.e.10.11.2011 when the opposite party furnished the particulars that they failed to furnish the video clipping.  Hence the complaint is filed with in limitation.  Accordingly the point is answered.  

          10.Point No:-(iii). As already discussed above the inordinate delay of the opposite party to resolve the complaint of the complainant and fails to follow the guidelines of the RBI that any complaint of the customer should complete within 7 working days. But in this particular case they have taken nearly 2 months to ascertain the video coverage of disputed transaction of 10.7.2011 and finally  they failed to do the same and due to delay of the opposite party the purpose of the complaint made by the complainant is defeated. It is the duty of the banks to do best service to their customers and as well as to provide security measures to avoid this type of discrepancies in the ATM and also the opposite party no where stated in their written version that the security guard is present in their ATM at the time of disputed transaction, this itself shows some sort of doubt and the adverse inference can be drawn against the opposite party. Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service and  mental agony. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

          11.Point No:-(iv). In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the costs of the complaint to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of this order. If the opposite party fails to pay within 6 weeks the said 10,000/- will carry interest  at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till realization...

Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation in Open Forum, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open forum this the 7^th day of January, 2015.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                         Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                                             President.

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON  BOTH SIDES

PW-1: Dr. M. Durvasulu Chetty (Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW-1: Smt P.Lakshmi (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	A Photocopy of S.B. Account along with endorsement of issue of ATM card by Opposite Party on 27.01.2007. Dated: 21.12.2006.
2.	A Photocopy of ATM Slip in respect of transaction on 10.07.2011 and 01.08.2011 Dt: 01.08.2011.
3.	Copy of letter address to the Opposite Party to furnish the copy of video clipping recorded on 10.07.2011 at Kumaraswamy thippa ATM center. Dt: 12.09.2011.
4.	A Photocopy of Letter addressed to the appellate authority SBI under RTI Act. Dt: 11.10.2011.
5.	Copy of Complaint to Bank Ombudsman. Dt: 17.10.2011.
6.	Reply from the Regional office SBI, Tirupati along with certificate of MCR Corporation, Mumbai Dt: 10.11.2011.
7.	Copy of Order closing the complaint by Bank ombudsman. Dt: 21.11.2011.
8.	Office copy of Legal Notice to the Opposite Party Dt: 12.08.2013.
9.	News item of EENADU about the defective functions by the bank regarding the ATM transactions by the ombudsman. Dt: 22.08.2013.
10.	Letter to the Superintendent of Post Office, Tirupati. Dt: 18.10.2013.
11.	Certified copy of delivery of letter issued by the Sub-Post Master, Srikalahasti. Dt: 21.10.2013.
12.	Website information by RBI with regarding ATM transactions. Dt: 06.01.2014.

 

            EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	A Photo copy of Statement of the Account 00000030104338722 for the Period from 20110701 to 20111231. Dt: 03/12/2014.
2.	A True copy of Statement of the Account 00000030104338722 for the Period 20110701 to 20111231. Dt: 03/12/2014.

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-

President

                                                            

                                                // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:- 1. The  complainant.

                   2. The opposite party.