D.O.F:10/07/2020     

                                                                                       D.O.O:30/09/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

                                   CC.72/2020

Dated this, the 30^th   day of September 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA. K.G                                      : MEMBER

Aasiya.K.M,

W/o Mahmood Kolavayal

R/at Ittummal,

Near Iqubal Higher Secondary School,             : Complainant

Kolavayal P.O,

Kasaragod 671531.

                                                            And

1. Syndicate Bank

Nileshwar Branch

(Adv: Sadananda Kamath.K)

2. SBI

Kanhangad Branch                                               : Opposite Parties

(Adv: Mohan Prakash.K)

ORDER

SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

          The brief facts of the case is as follows:

          That the complainants husband went to SBI ATM counter on 30/04/2019 to collect Rs. 9000/- by using his wife’s ATM card of Opposite Party No:1 bank, but on the day he could not receive the money.  The next day he collected money from another bank ATM by using the same ATM card.  The complainant got message of the debiting from SBI.  Further states that she got only got message but not received any amount from SBI ATM.  The incident was reported to Opposite party No:1 but not taken any action to redress the grievance.  The complainant was insulted by Opposite Party.

          The act of opposite parties caused much mental agony and financial loss, for which complainant claims Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 9000/- the lost amount.

          For opposite party No:1 Adv. K.S.Kamath filed vakalath and version.  The Opposite Party No:1 denied all the averments in the complaint .  As per Opposite party No:1 the complaint is not maintainable.  The ATM card belongs to complainant’s wife and he has no right to use the ATM card.  The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the account.  If any loss is sustained to the complainant to her husband is due to their own omission and Commission and not due to the Opposite parties.  No damage is caused to complainant as alleged.  There is no mental agony or loss to the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          For Opposite Party No:2  Adv. Mohan Prakash filed vakalath and version.  According to Opposite party No:2 the complaint is not maintainable .  The ATM card is not transferable and as that ground only the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Complainant withdraw the complainant received the money.  There is no excess amount in ATM.  The only conclusion which can be arrived at in the case is that there was negligence leaving the ATM room without waiting from the transaction to conclude, for which Opposite party No:2 is not liable.  There was negligence on the part of customer.  The complainant filed complaint through SMS only after a long time.  There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of opposite party No:2 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          In the meanwhile complainant settled the case between complainant and opposite party No:2 and opposite party No:2 exonerated from liability.

          The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1.  Ext A1 marked from his side.  The Opposite party No:1 filed documents marked as Ext B1 to B7.  Ext A1 annual statement, Ext B1 statement of account, Ext B2 letter to banking ombudsman, Ext B3 PRD decision sheet, Ext B4 ATM loss sheet, Ext B5 ATM transaction history, Ext B6 No Excess  cash Certificate , Ext B7 cash balance certificate.

          Points arised for consideration in this

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service in the matter of withdrawal of cash through the ATM counter of Opposite Party No:2 ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?

     The Complainant’s grievance is that he has not received the cash from ATM counter.  The  opposite party has not taken any steps to redress his grievance.  SBI the opposite party No:2 asserts that required cash is dispensed through ATM counter.  No excess cash is available in the ATM machine.  But still CC TV footage of person collecting cash from ATM counter is not produced.  So contention of Opposite parties are not convincing or satisfactory.  Further opposite party No:2 paid the amount of Rs. 9000/- disputed in the case to the complainant.

          The complainant seeking compensation from opposite Party No:1 from not attending to the grievance of the complainant.  The complainant did not produce any received or copy of complaint submitted to Opposite party No:1 in this regard.  The complainants too belated also.  Considering the fact that SBI ATM facility is used.  SBI, the Opposite party No:2 paid the disputed amount.  Thus there is no deficiency in service of the opposite parties the complaint is not entitled for any compensation.  Hence the complaint is dismissed without costs.  In the result complaint is dismissed.

     Sd/-                                                                                                Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Annual Statement

B1- Statement of account

B2- Letter to banking ombudsman

B3- PRD decision sheet

B4- ATM loss sheet

B5- ATM transaction history

B6- No excess cash certificate

B7- Cash Balance report

Witness Examined

Pw1- Mohammood.N

    Sd/-                                                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/                                                                 Assistant Registrar