IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 128/2010 DATED 15.06.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant V.Raghavan Nair,<br /> S/o Govinda Nair,<br /> W/A KSRTC Depot as employee, Bannimantap, Mysore-15.<br /> (By Sri. G.K.G. Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Manager, Syndicate Bank Ltd. Near KSRTC Depot, Bannimantap, Mysore-15.<br /> 2. The Manager, The ICICI Bank, Kalidasa Road, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri. B.T.S, Advocate for O.P.1 and <br /> by Sri G.C. advocate for O.P.2<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 13.04.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 29.04.2010<br /> Date of order : 15.06.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 17 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in banking service on the part of the first opposite party, that a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been debited in the account of the complainant, though he has not drawn the said amount through the ATM.<br /> <br /> 2. The first opposite party in the version, firstly contend that, the ATM card number stated is wrong and that on the basis of EDC report of the second opposite party regarding withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- through the ATM card of the complainant, the amount has been debited in the account. Certain other particulars are narrated. The deficiency alleged is denied.<br /> <br /> 3. The second opposite party in the version has contended that, the complainant is not a consumer and regarding withdrawal of the amount, particulars are narrated in detail. <br /> <br /> 4. In support of their respective contentions, the parties have filed their affidavits and certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now, we have to consider, whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party and that is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 6. Our finding on the point is in negative, for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. According to the complainant, he has his S.B.Account with the first opposite party and also, ATM card. On 10.07.2009, complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the ATM of the second opposite party. He went to his native place for treatment. On 29.07.2009, through his friend got ascertained the balance in the account and learnt that on 10.07.2009, a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been withdrawn through the ATM of second opposite party. But, in fact, the complainant has not withdrawn Rs.20,000/-. Said amount has been debited in the account of the complainant by the first opposite party. In spite of the requests and notice, the entry has not been reversed.<br /> <br /> 8. Considering the facts and the contentions, now, we have to decide, whether really the complainant has withdrawn the Rs.20,000/- or otherwise? To ascertain this fact amongst other circumstances, the timings of the withdrawals, play important role.<br /> <br /> 9. On the said day, at 19.18.45 hours, the complainant inserted his ATM card for withdrawal of Rs.3,000/-. At 19.19.24 hours, cash of Rs.3,000/- was dispensed. So far concerned to withdrawal of this Rs.3,000/-, there is no dispute. Then, for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/, card was inserted at 19.20.03 hours. Cash of Rs.20,000/- has been dispensed at 19.21.38 hours. Thus, after dispensing Rs.3,000/- at 19.19.24 hours, for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- card was again inserted at 19.20.03 hours, that is within 33 sec. There is only 33 sec. time gap between dispensation Rs.3,000/- and insertion card for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, admittedly, complainant has drawn Rs.3,000/- and after withdrawing said amount, to come out from the ATM Centre and again if third person has to enter the centre, quite substantial time more than 33 sec. is definitely required. If, this aspect is taken into consideration, one and the only inference that can be drawn is that, after the amount of Rs.3,000/- was dispensed within 33 sec. the complainant himself must have inserted the card for second time to withdraw the amount of Rs.20,000/-. Here so also, it is relevant to note that, after the machine dispenses the amount, the customer normally count the amount for which few sec. are required and then, he will collect the slip, for which also time is required. Under the circumstances, possibility of third person entering into the ATM centre appears to be impossible. <br /> <br /> 10. Second aspect that needs to be noted is, ATM card was with the complainant and so also, the secret number. In the absence of ATM card and particularly the secret number, withdrawing the amount by third person is not so easy unless the card is manipulated. To substantiate that fact, there is no material on record.<br /> <br /> 11. For the complainant, it is submitted that, there is negligence in not fixing camera, so has to ascertain who actually has withdrawn the amount of Rs.20,000/-. In fact, camera was fixed and as could be seen from the contentions of the parties, memory card retain the matter only for limited period and in the case on hand, after gap of the said period, the complainant has complained and hence, same cannot be produced or ascertained. In view of this, as against second opposite party, no negligence can be attributed. Then, it is contended that, complainant complained within few days to the first opposite party, but, the first opposite party did not investigate the matter immediately. In this connection, it is pointed out that, the complainant had mentioned the ATM card number wrongly and as such, the first opposite party was unable to enquire into the matter. <br /> <br /> 12. The first opposite party bank in which the amount has been debited, it is contended that, on the basis of the EDC report of second opposite party, the amount has been debited. Thus, unless and until, it is proved that, the EDC report of the second opposite party regarding withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- is wrong, deficiency on the part of the first opposite party, cannot be attributed.<br /> <br /> 13. Considering the facts, material on record and the discussion made here before, we are of the opinion that, complainant has not proved an alleged deficiency and accordingly, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 15th June 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />