BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G. Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),
Male Member
Wednesday, the 9th day of February, 2011
CC. No. 46 of 2010
Between:
Smt. Balanagamma W/o M. Sanjeevulu,
Aged about 42 years, Occ: Employee,
R/o H.No. 5-2-60/A,
Advocates colony, Beside BIG C.,
Sangareddy, Medak Dist. … Complainant
And
The Branch Manager,
Andhra Bank,
Ramchandrapuram Branch,
Ashok Nagar, Medak Dist. ….Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 27.01.2011 in the presence of Sri. M. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for complainant and Sri Ch. V. S. Prasad, Advocate for opposite party, upon hearing arguments, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. to the complainant towards damages.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant is an employee of area hospital Patancheru. She is presently residing in Sangareddy. She opened a savings bank account in the opposite party bank with account No. 045510100020445, with ATM card facility. On 20.05.2010 the complainant’s husband purchased one Sony Video Camera at Sony electronics, opposite Hyundai Show Room, Madapur, Hyderabad and paid Rs. 6,000/- with complainant’s ATM card and signed on the receipt. Five Minutes after the transaction the complainant’s husband checked the statement through near by Andhra Bank ATM and found that Rs.6,000/- was debited in the account towards the above transaction. On 25.05.2010 the complainant checked the account and surprised to see debit entry of Rs.10,000/- dated.20.05.2010. Immediately the complainant’s husband gave a complaint to the opposite party which was registered vide No. 0455000041, dated. 26.05.2010. The opposite party has not given acknowledgement to the complainant, however stated that they would verify the account and credit the amount which was debited. Inspite of several requests and reminders about the transaction the opposite party did not bother about the complaint. On 26.05.2010 the complainant gave a complaint to the opposite party stating that she has not withdrawn the amount from any ATM and requested to credit the amount to her account but the opposite party did not bother nor given reply, due to which the complainant suffered mentally and could not concentrate on her day to day affairs. Finally on 07.07.2010 when the complainant requested the opposite party to credit the illegally debited amount, the opposite party replied that her complaint was closed because their enquiry revealed that the amount was withdrawn from ATM. Therefore she claims a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of this complaint and Rs. 10,000/- the amount which was withdrawn. Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite party resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his version to the following effect:
The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant opened an account with account No. 045510100020445 and she has also availed debit card No. 4688170455088247 but not ATM card. Because the complainant’s case is that her husband used the debit card she may not be having knowledge about the usage of the card in turn she could not reveal actual facts. It is true that the complainant has given a complaint with No. 0455000041 dated 25.06.2010. After verifying the records the bank had clearly explained the complainant about the facts and also furnished bank statement for the period 15.05.2010 to 31.05.2010 which clearly reveals that the transaction of withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- had taken place at ATM counter. It is not to true to say the opposite party assured the complainant to credit Rs. 10,000/- in her account after verification, as the transaction taken place at ATM counter and the debit card was also utilized by the third party. On 20.05.2010 the complainant’s husband used the debit card at Sony electronics, Madapur for payment for purchase of Video Camera for Rs. 6,000/-. In addition to the said transaction, on the same day once again the debit card was used and drawn Rs. 10,000/-. On 25.05.2010 the debit card was again used and withdrawn Rs. 2,000/- The balance in the account was Rs.982/- as per the bank statement for the period 15.05.2010 to 31.05.2010. The complainant never stated any where either in legal notice or in her complaint regarding the amount available in her account as on 20.05.2010. As per the bank statement Rs. 18,982/- was available on the said date. Mr. M. Sanjeevulu (Husband of the complainant) used the card two times first for purchase of Video camera for Rs. 6,000/- and secondly for cash withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/-. So the husband of the complainant might not revealed the transaction of withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. It is to be noted that the S.B. account opened by the complainant is only single operated account but not joint account. The complainant also applied for a debit card which was issued. As per condition No. 12 in the debit card application, the debit card shall not be transferable and it shall be only used by the card holder for valid and lawful purposes. So also condition No. 14 says that the personal identification Number (PIN) shall under no circumstances be revealed to any third party. The card holder shall be solely responsible for consequences arising out of disclosure of his / her PIN and /or use of the debit card whether authorized or not by the card holder and shall be liable for any increase in liability which may arise due to the use of debit card. Therefore as per the above conditions use of the debit card by a person other than the card holder itself is illegal. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant in addition to filing her evidence affidavit as P.W. 1 has also filed the evidence affidavit of her husband as P.W. 2 and marked Exs. A1 to A6 on her behalf. Chief manager of the opposite party filed his evidence affidavit and marked Exs. B1 to B3 to prove the defence on behalf of the opposite party. Written arguments of both parties filed. Complainant’s advocate requested to treat their written arguments as oral arguments. Oral arguments of the opposite party’s advocate heard. Perused the record.
4. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the amount claimed in the complaint or not?
Point:
5. The case of the complainant is that she has a savings bank account in the opposite party bank with debit card facility and on 20.05.2010 she has delivered the debit card to her husband informing the PIN and he has purchased Sony Video Camera for Rs. 6,000/- by scratching the card but on 25.05.2010 when the complainant checked the account, to her surprise, she has seen a debit entry for Rs. 10,000/- on 20.05.2010. Immediately in the next day the complainant gave a complaint to the opposite party who registered the same as complaint No. 0455000041, dated 26.05.2010 and thereafter replied that her complaint was closed after enquiry, as the amount was withdrawn from ATM. The defence is that on 20.05.2010 the debit card was used for purchase for Rs. 6,000/- by scratching the card at Sony Electronics, Madapur and on the same day the debit card was again used to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- through ATM counter and the same was revealed in their enquiry on the complaint of the complainant.
6. The documents marked in this case are: Ex. A1 is Bank statement of account. Ex. A2 is Xerox copy of debit card. Ex. A3 is legal notice. Ex.A4 is postal registration receipt. Ex.A5 is postal acknowledgement. Ex. A6 is Instructions of Reserve Bank of India regarding reconciliation of transactions at ATMs failure. Ex.B1 is Xerox copy of application for opening account in bank. Ex.B2 is Xerox copy of debit card application and Ex.B3 is debit card transaction sheet.
7. Ex.B3 debit card transaction sheet shows withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 20.05.2010 at 2:31 p.m. Ex.A1 statement of Account also clearly shows the first transaction of Rs.6,000/- and the second the transaction of Rs.10,000/- on 20.05.2010. The record is clear about both the transactions. The other documents which are marked on behalf the complainant Exs. A2 to A6 are not of any help to appreciate the contention of the complainant that Rs.10,000/- was illegally debited from her account on 20.05.2010. There is no material before this forum to prove the contention of the complainant that Rs.10,000/- was not drawn from ATM counter by using the debit card of the complainant. In the absence of any such evidence the opposite party cannot be held to be negligent or deficient in service. It is therefore held that the complainant has failed to prove that Rs.10,000/- was illegally debited from her account on 20.05.2010 and that she is entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- as claimed in the complaint. The point is answered against the complainant.
8. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 9th day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Copy to:
- The Complainant
- The Opp.Party Copy delivered to the Complainant/
- Spare copy Opp.Party On ___________
Dis.No. /2011, dt.
