Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/58/2019

N.C.S.M.Prasad, S/o. N.Subbarao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In person

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                              Filing Date: 31-05-2019                                                      Order Date: 29-11-2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

 

Present:-  Sri. T.Anand, President (FAC)

      Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

C.C.No.58/2019

Between

Mr. N.C.S.M.Prasad, S/o. Late N. Subba Rao,

Aged about 55 years, residing at # 581,

Balaji Colony, Tirupati – 517502.                                                       ... Complainant

 

And

The Branch Manager,

Corporation Bank,

Gandhi Road,

TIRUPATI – 517501.                                                                          … Opposite Party

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 15.11.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.N.C.S.M.Prasad, Party in Person and Sri. S.M.Jhan, counsel for the opposite party having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

         This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying direction to opposite party to exchange torn hundred rupee note which was obtained from ATM on 28.04.2019 and to pay compensation amount of Rs.4,90,000/- due to deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and to pay Rs.8,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

         2.The complaint averments are as follows:- The complainant is customer of opposite party bank by maintaining the Savings Bank Account bearing No. 520101204759141 with debit card facility. He visited opposite party’s ATM situated  outside the opposite party branch on 28.04.2019 at 16:27:37 hours and had withdrawn Rs.500/-. The ATM has dispensed five Rs.100/- notes (100x5). The complainant was shocked to see the condition of the currency notes dispensed by the ATM. Only two notes are issuable, two notes are mutilated/soiled and one is torn and pasted with cellophane tape. He waved the notes at CC camera and walked out as it is holiday on account of Sunday. With great difficulty, he convinced the business people and paid Rs.400/- (100x4) which includes two mutilated notes and purchased certain needy items but, the torn note was not accepted by the business people in the market. He was put to inconvenience as he could not exchange the torn note. As per the RBI guidelines, the bank should verify the quality of notes and load ATMs with re-issuable notes only. There should not be any soiled/mutilated/torn/fake notes in the ATMs. But the opposite party completely ignored and violated the RBI guidelines in loading the cash in the ATM. He had a past bitter experience on 19.09.2018 due to arrogant behavior of Mr.Vasu, cashier of the opposite party’s branch. He did not have enough guts to entering to the opposite party branch premises. Legal notice dt:29.04.2019 was sent to opposite party by registered post acknowledgment vide postal receipt No.RN402576975IN dt:29.04.2019 and same was acknowledged by opposite party on 30.04.2019 for which there was no reply from the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached the forum seeking relief.

        3.The opposite party filed written version contending as follows:-   At the outset, the complaint allegations are denied. It is stated that, the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service. The complainant has approached this forum with unclean hands. The complainant is called upon to prove that, he is customer of opposite party bank by maintaining the Savings Bank Account bearing No. 520101204759141 with debit card facility and that he visited the opposite party ATM situated outside of the opposite party branch on 28.04.2019 at 16:27:37 hours and had withdrawn Rs.500/- and that ATM has dispensed five Rs.100/- notes (100x5) out of which two notes are issuable, two notes are mutilated/soiled and one is torn note pasted with cellophane tape and that he waved the notes at CC camera and walked out ATM. It is denied that complainant could use Rs.400/- (100x4) to the business people while purchasing the needy items and that he could not exchange the torn note as it was not accepted in the shop. It is denied that as per RBI guidelines, bank should verify the quality of notes and load ATMs with re-issuable notes and that opposite party bank violated the RBI guidelines while loading the cash in the ATMs. It is denied that complainant had bitter experience with opposite party on 19.09.2018 as one Mr.Vasu, cashier of the opposite party branch behaved arrogantly with the complainant. It is stated that the complainant is not account holder of opposite party branch, Tirupati. However he was having account outside branch but, he did not disclose where he is having his account. The opposite party used to treat the customers courteously when they approached the bank for making payments or withdrawing amounts. The complainant could have exchanged the torn note by visiting the bank but he did not visit the bank though branch manager asked him to come. The complaint is filed with malafied intention to harass the opposite party. Keeping cash in the ATMs is entrusted to out-sourcing organization by the opposite party bank and the complainant is having knowledge of the same but he did not implead the out-sourcing organization as party in the complaint and hence complaint is bad for non-joinder necessary party. Hence it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed as the opposite party never indulged in unfair trade practice and there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

           4. The complainant filed chief evidence affidavit as PW-I and marked Ex:A1 to A5. On behalf of opposite party, Sri.Ravi Pralhdrao Vaidya, Chief Manager, working in opposite party bank filed his chief affidavit as RW-1 and no documents are exhibited.

          5.  Now the Point for consideration is:-

               Whether there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite party? If so, to what extent, the complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

           6.Point:-  In order to prove his case, the complainant marked certain documents Ex:A1 is the first page of Savings Bank Account book which shows that the complainant has SB Account in the Corporation Bank, Vijayawada vide SB Account No.520101204759141. Ex:A2 is ATM transaction slip in original (System Generated dt:28.04.2019). Ex:A3 is torn hundred rupee note joined by cello tape. Ex:A4 is notice sent to opposite party dt: 29.04.2019. Ex:A5 is postal acknowledgment letter dt:30.04.2019.

            The contention of the opposite party is that, the job of keeping cash in ATMs are entrusted to out-sourcing organization and that they are only responsible for anything in respect of currency condition of the notes and that since they are not made party, this complaint has to be dismiss for non-joinder of necessary party. We are of the view that, argument of opposite party does not hold water since opposite party is vicariously liable for the acts of out-sourcing agency, opposite party cannot contend that the out-sourcing is separate one and has nothing to do with opposite party in respect of ATM services. There may be contract between the bank and out-sourcing agency for keeping the cash in the ATMs but ultimately it is the responsibility of opposite party and not out-sourcing agency if anything goes wrong with regard to the ATM services. For complainant’s part he has filed the torn currency note with ATM transaction slip to prove that on 28.04.2019, he had withdrawn Rs.500/- cash from the ATM which was attached to. The opposite party bank at Tiruapti at 16:27:37 hours. No evidence is placed by the opposite party to prove that complainant had not withdrawn money from that ATM.

           7. The opposite party counsel argued that, the complainant could have easily exchanged the torn hundred rupee note by visiting the bank on the next day. It is the case of the complainant that, one Mr.Vasu, Cashier of the opposite party branch behaved in high handed manner and did not give proper reply to him though manager asked the complainant to visit the bank to exchange the hundred rupee note. Hence considering the facts and documents filed by the complainant, we come to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite party since the complainant got cut hundred rupee note joined by cello tape from the ATM attached to the opposite party branch and thus put to inconvenience. However the compensation sought by the complainant is exorbitant and not commensurate with the deficiency in service by opposite party bank.

           8. In the result,  complaint is allowed partly, directing the complainant to take back Ex:A3 from the forum and present the same to branch manager of opposite party branch and on such presentation, the branch manager shall give new hundred rupee note to the complainant by receiving the Ex:A3 and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) towards compensation to the complainant for causing inconvenience to him due to deficiency in service besides paying an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The order shall be complied within six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two hundred only) shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 29^th day of November, 2019.

 

             Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-

   Lady Member                                                                                           President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

PW-1: Sri N.C.S.M. Prasad (Chief affidavit filed).

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

RW-1: Sri Ravi Pralhdrao Vaidya (Chief affidavit filed).

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Self attested photo copy of Corporation Bank Savings Passbook Front Page of the Complainant.
	ATM Transaction Slip in Original (System Generated). Dt: 28.04.2019.
	TORN Rs.100/- NOTE in Original.
	Notice sent to the Opposite Party. Dt: 29.04.2019.
	Postal Acknowledgement Card in Original. Dt: 30.04.2019.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

                                                                                                  -NIL-                                

                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                           President (FAC)

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                   2) The Opposite party.