BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER,
PRESIDENT.
SMT.S.SANDHYA RANI,
FEMALE MEMBER.
. . .
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 14 OF 2017
Between:
V.Janardhan S/o Late Venkaiah, Age: 75 years, Occ:Retd.Teacher,
at present Pastor Bethlehem Prayer House, Nalgonda Road,
Thipparthy Village and Mandal of Nalgonda District.
…COMPLAINANT.
]
AND
- The A.T.M. Manager, Tata Indus Cash, Thipparthy Village and Mandal of Nalgonda District.
- The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch,
Clock Tower Centre, Nalgonda Town and District, T.S.
…OPPOSITE PARTIES.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri G.Prakash, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri V.Surendar Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1, and Sri D.Amarendar Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER, PRESIDENT
1. The Complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
2. The facts leading to file this complaint are as follows:
The Complainant has an account, vide Account No.52084274525 with the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant used his ATM Debit Card in the ATM machine of Opposite Party No.1 on 01/10/2016 which
Contd…2
-2-
did not function properly. In the process of using his ATM Debit Card, the Complainant did not receive any amount and the ATM machine did not dispense Rs.10,000/-. The Complainant did not receive Rs.10,000/-, but the screen of the ATM machine showed that he received Rs.10,000/-. Immediately the Complainant informed the same to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but there was no response to his complaint. He also made complaint against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 before the Police Department, but the Police did not take any action. The Complainant finally got issued a legal notice by Registered Post on 15/03/2017 to the Opposite Party No.2 through his counsel. The notice was served on the Opposite Party No.2, but the Opposite Party No.1 not received the notice so far. Even after receiving the legal notice, the Opposite Party No.2 did not reply to the legal notice nor credited the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the Complainant. The acts committed by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service on their part and as such, the Complainant filed this complaint.
3. The Complainant filed his proof affidavit and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6.
4. The Opposite Party No.1 filed his written version, at the outset the Opposite Party No.1 denied the relationship of any consumer and service provider and stated that there is suppression of facts concealed by the Complainant and there is no privity of contract between the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The Opposite Party No.1 verified and tallied ATM records and post receiving complaints regarding mal-functioning of ATM and found that there is no surplus amount lying
Contd…3
-3-
and that the transaction has commenced and money was duly withdrawn from the ATM machine by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 after due verification did not find any excess cash or any cash balance in the ATM machine and as such there is no defect on the part of the ATM machine of the Opposite Party No.1.
5. The Opposite Party No.2 filed his written version, stating that as per the CMS complaint details and JP Log with regard to the transaction and withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was successful and the cash was dispensed by the ATM. There is no deficiency in service on his part and, therefore, the Opposite Party No.2 is not liable to pay any amount.
6. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 filed their respective affidavits. Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. No documents were marked on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.
7. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite Parties?
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the claims he made
in his complaint?
3) If so, to what extent?
8. POINT No.1:
It is a fact that the Complainant is having account with Opposite Party No.2, vide Account No.52084274525. On 01/10/2016 the Complainant operated his ATM Card into the ATM machine of Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/-, but he did not receive any amount and the screen of the ATM machine showed that the amount was withdrawn and was received by the Complainant. The
Contd…4
-4-
Complainant lodged the complaint, vide Ex.A-1 with the Opposite Parties on 05/10/2016 and the Opposite Party No.1 issued Complaints Management System, Complaint Details, exhibiting the details of customer, account and ATM Card details, details of ATM service and stated that ‘customer account debited, but cash not dispensed’ and credit customer account directly within seven working days from the date of chargeback raised or send a successful copy of JP Log’. This shows that the transaction was unsuccessful and there was no cash debited from the account of the Complainant. The Complainant also lodged complaint with the Police, Thipparthy and Ex.A-2 is the acknowledgment of the same. Ex.A-3 is the complaint copy. Ex.A-4 is the legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Ex.A-5 is the Postal Receipt and Ex.A-6 is the Acknowledgment Card of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has operated the ATM, but he could not debit the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM machine and inspite of his complaints, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not take any action and credit the same. The Opposite Party No.1 in spite of receiving the legal notice, did not give any reply with regard to the transaction or the amount withdrawal from the ATM machine. The Opposite Party No.1 did not take any steps to find out whether any amount was withdrawn from the ATM machine or not, instead of that, in his counter the Opposite Party No.1 stated that the transaction was successful.
9. The learned counsel for the Complainant is relying on the decision reported in CPJ, SCDRC, Uttarkhand in Appeal No.34/2010, wherein it was contended that the Complainant operated the ATM machine and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 denied that the cash did
Contd…5
-5-
not come in the mouth of the ATM machine. The only dispute was that either the Respondent has received the cash from the ATM machine or the cash revert back to the ATM machine as it was greater than the limit and could not come from the machine, and the Opposite Parties tallied the physical cash and found no difference and found no excess cash in ATM machine. The Hon’ble State Commission of Uttarkhand viewed that the Appellants could not proved that the Respondent has received the cash from the ATM machine. The Appellants investigation has not given proper Investigation Report. For the above said reasons, the Hon’ble State Commission of Uttarkhand dismissed the appeal by upholding the order passed by the District Forum.
10. In the present case also the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not file any report or investigation report to prove that the amount was withdrawn by the Complainant. Further, the Opposite Parties No.1 and No.2 failed to produce any cogent evidence to disprove the contention of the Complainant with regard to the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. In spite of lodging the complaints with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and issuing legal notices, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have not taken any action or credit the amount of Rs.10,000/- into the account of the Complainant on verifying the facts. It is seen that the Complainant is a Senior Citizen and rustic villager had come to ATM for withdrawing the amount of Rs.10,000/-, but he was not given proper service by the ATM machine and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to get back his amount from the bank. Hence, we feel that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and No.2 in rendering the service to the Complainant.
Contd…6
-6-
11. POINT Nos.2 & 3:
In the light of the findings under Point No.1, the Complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was not debited by the ATM machine, with interest. The Complainant is further entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony apart from costs of Rs.2,000/-.
In the result, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit in this Forum jointly and severally, an amount of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint, i.e. 06/05/2017 till realization, Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- [Rupees Two Thousand only] towards costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this Order. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 28th day of November, 2019.
FEMALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of Complainant. Sri Satish Ramakrishnan,
Authorized Representative of
Tata Communications Payment
Solutions Ltd. filed his affidavit
on behalf of Opp.Party No.1.
Sri B.P.Shiva Kumar, Chief
Manager, SBI, Main Branch,
Nalgonda filed his affidavit on
behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
Contd…7
-7-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1: Dt. Xerox copy of Statement of Account along
with Complaints Management System,
Complaint Details and Journal Record.
Ex.A-2: Dt. Xerox copy of Acknowledgment of Receipt
of complaint of the Complainant.
Ex.A-3 Dt.04/11/2016 Copy of complaint given by Complainant
to the S.I. of Police, Thipparthy.
Ex.A-4 Dt.15/03/2017 O/c of legal notice issued by the counsel
for the Complainant to the Opp.Parties.
Ex.A-5 Dt.15/03/2017 Postal Receipts (2).
Ex.A-6 Dt.17/03/2017 Postal Acknowledgement.
For Opposite Party No.2:
Ex.B-1 Dt. Xerox copy of Complaints Management
System-Complaint Details.
Ex.B-2 Dt.01/10/2016 Xerox copy of Journal Record.
For Opposite Party No.1:
Nil.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri G.Prakash,
Advocate for the Complainant.
2). Sri V.Surendar Reddy,
Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1.
3). Sri D.Amarendar Rao,
Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.
