BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
FA NO.334 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.401 OF 2012
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD
Between:
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Vidyut Soudha Branch,
Hyderabad, rep. by its
Branch Manager.
…Appellant/Opposite party
And
Tadivaka Venkateshwar Rao,
R/o H.No.6-3-597/5/9/3,
3rd Floor, Red Fort, City View,
Anand Nagar, Khairathabad,
Hyderabad – 500 004.
…Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.V.S.Ramakrishna
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Y.V.N.Charyulu
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
and
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Tuesday, the Sixth day of December
Two thousand Sixteen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the Opposite party aggrieved by the orders of the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad dated 05.11.2013 made in C.C.No.401 of 2012 in allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.64,760/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 06.05.2011 till date of realization and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs granting time of 30 days for compliance.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that Complainant is holder of savings bank account bearing No.52078049825 since long with the Opposite party and operating the same by way of ATM card. As things stood thus, he found an amount of Rs.64,760/- unauthorizedly withdrawn from his account by third party though the ATM card is in his possession. On coming to know the same, Complainant made a complaint to the Opposite party furnishing all the particulars on 10.05.2011 and requested to investigate into the matter and also to re-credit the amount withdrawn from his account.
4) On 12.05.2011 the complainant received a letter from the Opposite party informing that on 05.05.2011 and 06.05.2011 the amounts were withdrawn through ATM card No.5044352102700002398 from ATM centers of ICICI bank and Canara Bank. Again on 20.05.2011 the Opposite party addressed another letter communicating that the amounts cannot be withdrawn through ATM card without sharing the PIN and hence, they are not liable for the alleged withdrawal. Complainant got issued a notice for the same on 26.11.2011 which was acknowledged by them on 29.11.2011 but they failed to respond or comply with the notice, which amounts to deficiency of service.
5) However, the complainant learnt that these withdrawals were taken place at Bangalore on which date he was at Kadapa on 05.05.2011 and at Hyderabad on 06.05.2011. Hence the complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.64,760/- withdrawn from his account together with interest; to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages along with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
6) Opposite party resisted the claim by way of filing counter contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It admitted to have issued ATM Debit card No.5044352102700002398 along with PIN to the Complainant for his personal use and that the amount cannot be withdrawn from the ATM without sharing PIN to somebody and the Opposite party is not responsible and not liable for such alleged transactions and to that effect, they replied through letters dated 12.05.2011 and 20.05.2011 to the complaint dated 10.05.2011 informing that they are not liable and responsible for the said transactions. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
7) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 and on behalf of the Opposite party, G.Radhakanth, Branch Manager filed his affidavit and the documents Ex.B1 to B6.
8) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint with the reliefs, as stated, supra, at paragraph No.1.
9) Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellant/Opposite party preferred this appeal contending that the orders of forum below is contrary to facts, evidence and law and hence liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the forum below did not consider the main facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the withdrawals were made at Bangalore at Canara Bank and ICICI bank ATMs. That such transactions would occasion when the PIN is shared to a third person and holding an ATM debit card is the responsibility of the customer. In fact, it wrote letter to Canara Bank which replied that as the image video clips for the subject transaction are not available as the said event pertains to 3 months old while the letter sent to ICICI bank was returned unclaimed. Hence prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders of the forum below.
10) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
11) Both the parties filed their written arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version.
12) It is not in dispute that the Respondent holds a savings bank account with the Appellant bank as also the ATM debit-card which is in dispute. It is also not in dispute that an amount of Rs.64,760/- is withdrawn from the account of the Respondent by some third parties at Bangalore in ICICI bank and Canara Bank ATMs. It is further not in dispute that the Respondent lodged complaint with the Appellant bank on 10.05.2011 itself regarding unauthorized withdrawal of amount from his account.
13) The appellant would only contend that as the Respondent might have shared the PIN to a third party, resulted in such withdrawals. Immediately after receipt of the complaint, there was ample opportunity for the Appellant bank to address letters to the concerned banks to send the video footage of the particular dates so as to verify the bonafides of the complaint made by the Respondent, which it failed to act upon. The appellant was lethargic and negligent in investigating the matter in proper perspective as is evident from Ex.B6 letter. From the perusal of Ex.B6, dated 16.08.2011 it is clear that the Appellant bank addressed the letter on 30.07.2011 to the customer service section of Canara Bank at Hyderabad. Though the Appellant filed the returned postal cover stated to have been sent to the ICICI bank, Bangalore, it failed to file the copy of letter addressed thereto.
14) Had the Appellant bank acted diligently and immediately, the Respondent could have had an opportunity to verify the bonafides of such withdrawals, which it failed to. Moreover, obtaining the video clips could not have been possible by the Respondent. The forum below had rightly allowed the complaint which is under challenge in this appeal by discussing in detail as to the fastening of liability on the Appellant. We do not find any irregularity or infirmities in appreciation of the fact or law by the forum below. Hence, we concur with the findings of the forum below and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Accordingly, we answer the point framed at paragraph No.9, supra, against the appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
15) In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, but no costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 06.12.2016
