<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 18th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2332/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sugandhi Manjunath,R/at No.1/16, 10th A Main,West of card road,Shivanagara, Rajajinagar,Bangalore – 560010.Advocate – Sri.Harish Kumar M.CV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Branch Manager,State Bank of Mysore,4th Block, Rajajinagar,Bangalore – 560 010.2. The General Manager,State Bank of Mysore,Head Office, PB No.9727,Mysore Bank Circle,Kempegowda Circle,Bangalore – 560 009.3) The Deputy Secretary,Office of the Banking Ombudsman (Karnataka)Reserve Bank of India Building, 2nd Floor, 10/3/8,Nrupathunga Road,Bangalore –560 001.Advocate – Sri.T.S.Mahabaleswara<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to debit Rs.20,000/- with interest to his account and pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the customer of the OP having S.B A/c No.64009514080 since 2006. On 04.03.2008 at 12.31 p.m complainant has withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,500/- at State Bank of India ATM Kempegowda Bus Stand. On 07.03.2008 when he checked his account to his utter shock and surprise Rs.20,000/- has been deducted from his account under the guise of withdrawal of the same on 04.03.2008 at 12.32 p.m at Hebbal ATM center. Which is highly impossible because the distance between Kempegowda Bus Stand and Hebbal is nearly 12 Kms, within one minute nobody can reach the said destination. Immediately he lodged the complaint to the OP to rectify the mistake. Unfortunately OP did not consider his complaint. Complainant even approached OP.3. There was no proper response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP on the receipt of the complaint from the complainant they got it counter checked and they got it confirmed that both the transactions have taken place, one at 12.31 p.m and another at 12.32 p.m and complainant has withdrawn Rs.1,500/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively. Under such circumstances no fault lies with the OP. The other allegations that through ATM only Rs.15,000/- at a time can be withdrawn not more than that has no basis. The ATM centers coming under the limits of Hebbal jurisdiction were opened at Kempegowda KSRTC Bus Stand. So the allegation of the complainant that there is a distance of 12 Kms between Hebbal ATM and Kempegowda Bus Stand is false. Complaint is devoid of merits. Approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. The fact that complainant is the card holder of the OP having No.5046454032300005891 is not at dispute so also he having the S.B account at OP.1 & 2 Bank. It is contended by the complainant in his complaint that on 04.03.2008 at 12.31 p.m he has withdrawn Rs.1,500/- at SBI ATM Kempegowda Bus Stand and he has produced the receipt. Receipt speaks to the transaction dated 03.04.2008 not 04.03.2008. It is further contended by the complainant that on 07.03.2008 when he verified the pass book he was shocked to note a missing of Rs.20,000/-. Again this contention appears to be false because the second transaction is also taken place on 03.04.2008 not on 04.03.2008 at 12.32 p.m. The pass book does not speak to missing of Rs.20,000/- as on 07.03.2008. So complainant himself is not very much sure about the actual transactions. On this score alone the approach of the complainant does not appear to be a fair and honest.<br /> 7. It is specifically contended by the OP that in Kempegowda KSRTC Bus Stand they have opened 3 ATM’s covering Hebbal ATM jurisdiction. So all the three ATM’s located in the same room at KSRTC Bus Stand. So in one of the ATM complainant must have withdrawn Rs.1,500/- by using his card and in the another ATM machine which is located by the side of first one coming under the Hebbal ATM jurisdiction he must have operated the second time within a minute and drawn Rs.20,000/-. This possibility can’t be ruled out.<br /> <br /> 8. Complainant has not disputed the said fact of three ATM’s coming under the Hebbal ATM jurisdiction being located in one and the same room at KSRTC Bus Stand. When that is so, the allegations of the complainant that distance between Hebbal ATM and Kempegowda Bus Stand ATM is 12 Kms, so it is humanly impossible to reach Hebbal ATM within one minute appears to be an after thought one a perverse intelligent approach. Complainant want to take undue advantage of the description as Hebbal ATM center and Kempegowda Bus Stand ATM center. Though all the three ATM centers are located in one and the same room of KSRTC Bus Stand under the control of SBI CAC Hebbal.<br /> <br /> 9. On the receipt of the complaint from the complainant OP got checked transactions with the said SBI. SBI vide its letter dated 18.03.2008 confirmed that the transaction with respect to Rs.20,000/- is a successful transaction and that transaction refers to complainant card and complainant S.B account which he had with the OP.1 & 2. They have also produced the copy of the J P log which supports the defence of the OP. Of course it is much contended by the complainant that as per the circular only Rs.15,000/- can be withdrawn in a day. But it is not so. The latest circular produced by the OP goes to show that the limit for withdrawal is Rs.25,000/- in a day. Under such circumstances that defence also does not hold force.<br /> <br /> 10. In view of the elaborate discussions made by us we find that complainant has utterly failed to prove the deficiency in service. It is always said he who seeks equity must do equity must come with clean hands. But as already observed by us the approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. He wants to take undue advantage of the description of the two ATM one at Kempegowda Bus Stand and another at Hebbal. Though all those machines situated in one and the same room under the control of SBI at Kempegowda Bus Stand, Bangalore. Hence for these reasons complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Under such circumstances complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br />