BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE.

PRESENT:   THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L.,           PRESIDENT 

                                              TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E.              MEMBER – I

                                          THIRU. K. DH.AYALAMURTHI,B.SC.           MEMBER – II

CC. 11 / 2008

MONDAY THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011

G. Suresh Kumar,

S/o. G. Govindasamy,

No.5, Garudathri Nagar,

Gandhi Nagar Post,

Vellore – 632 006.                                                                     …  Complainant.

-Vs –

The Branch Manager,

ICICIC Bank,

Officer’s Line,

Krishna Nagar,

Vellore.                                                                                       … Opposite party.

. . . . .

              This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 15.11.2011, in the presence of Thiru.  B. Devaraj, Advocates for the complainant and Thiru. M. Sampath Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:

O R D E R

            Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District.

1.         The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows:

             The complainant is maintaining saving bank account in the opposite party’s bank bearing account No.039501506575 from January 2007 and transacting the said account so far.    He has been issued with a ATM card against that account, and the period of validity of the said card upto 2017.     He gone to ATM Centre, maintain by opposite party’s bank at Bangalore Road, Vellore, along with his friend K.Sathish at about 1 p.m.  on 10.11.2007.  The complainant went to inside the ATM centre and inserted his card by following the instructions for withdrawal of money specified and displayed by the ATM.   He intended to withdraw Rs.5000/- and he gave instructions to the machine following proper procedure and he was waiting for the machine to delivery the currency notes amounting to Rs.5000/-.    The ATM did not delivered any currency, but delivered balance slip about the current balance of his bank account and the said amount of Rs.5000/- was debited from the complainant saving bank account.   He contacted the customer care immediately and made a complaint about the non-delivery of currency note intended to be withdraw by the complainant.    The above said customer care centre informed the complainant that they look into the matter and do the needful within 7 days.  The complainant approached the ATM for getting the information about the current balance on his account on the same day and again the said amount of Rs.5000/- was debited from the complainant account event though the ATM did not delivered any currency. 

2.         No action was taken by the opposite party’s bank for credit of said amount to the complainant’s bank account even after complaint given at customer care centre.  He has personally approached the opposite party and gave a complaint on 20.11.07 and demanding the credit of said amount to his bank’s account.  The opposite party neglected the 20.11.07 complaint and did not take any action for credit of the said amount to his account.    Hence he issued a legal notice on 3.1.08 through his advocate to amicably settle the matter by giving proper reasons to make the opposite party to understand the intenable reasons put forth by him refusing the claim of the complainant.  But even after acknowledged the 3.1.07 legal notice the opposite party  refused the lawful claim of the complainant.    The adamant and fraudulent attitude of the opposite party caused mental agony, discomfort and gave hardship to the complainant due to which the complainant has suffered very much in the hands of the opposite party.  Therefore the complainant prayed this forum for directing the opposite party to pass an award for refund of Rs.5000/- which was wrongfully debited from the complainant’s account with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. together with cost of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the financial loss, mental agony.  

3.         The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is as follows:

              The opposite party denies all the allegations made in the petition except those are specifically admitted herein and puts the petitioner to the strict proof of the same.  The opposite party denies the allegation that the complainant gone to the ATM centre of the opposite party at Bangalore Road, Vellore along with his friend K. Sathish at about 1.00 pm. on 10.11.07 the complainant went inside the inserted the card intended to withdraw Rs.5000/- and the ATM did not delivered any currency but delivered balance slip about the current balance of his bank account and the said amount of Rs.5000/- was debited from the complainant saving bank account even though the ATM did not delivered any currency as untrue.   After through and proper scrutiny of the ATM machine daily reconcile statement and data sheet it reveals that the complainant had withdrawn the said Rs.5000/- from his saving account without any flawless operation.  The automated Teller Machine is familiar in the bank operation only for its accuracy and correctness and there is no flaw in it working.  Hence the complainant’s allegation that the ATM machine did not deliver Rs.5000/- from his account is false and denied as unture.  Since the card holder alone was allowed to access the ATM machine, hence the allegation that complainant went along with his friend K. Sathish is also false and denied as concocted story made with ulterior motive.   The allegation in para 3,5 and 6 of the complainant that the complainant approached the watchman of the said ATM and made complaint and he in turn gave the customer care telephone number accordingly the complainant contacted the customer care immediately and made a complaint and no action was taken by the opposite party bank and another complaint and also personally approached the opposite party and gave a compliant on 20.11.07 and demanded the credit of said amount to his account are leveled as if the opposite party did not take any action against his complaint.  Both the  customer care centre and the branch when ever any complaint received about their operation immediately investigate and look into the complaint and report the finding to the complainant. Accordingly in this case also the complainant was well informed in person and over phone that the no excess cash in the ATM machine on 10.11.07 and machine had promptly delivered the currency of Rs.5000/- on the said particular operation as alleged by the complainant.   Further the opposite party is also informed the complainant that there is no flaw in the operation of the alleged ATM machine on 23.11.07 and there are several other operations were done in the particular ATM machine immediately after the complainant’s transaction.  Hence there is no question in action on the part of the opposite party on the complainant made on 20.11.07.   Hence there is no question of any malpractice on the part of the ATM machine.  There is no negligence of service on the part of the opposite party.    Hence the Sec. 2(g) and 2(f) of the Consumer Act are not applicable to this case.   Therefore this complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

4.         Now the points for consideration are:

(a)  Whether there is any deficiency in service, on 

                 the part of the opposite party?

            (b)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the

                 reliefs asked for?.

5.         Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3  were marked on the side of the opposite party.  Proof affidavit of the complainant and  Proof affidavit of the  opposite party have been filed.  No oral evidence let in by either side. 

6.         POINT NO. (a):        

            The Learned Counsel for the complainant would contend that on 10.11.2007 the complainant attempted to withdraw  a sum of Rs.5000/- from the ATMs maintained by the opposite party  by using the debit card issued to him.   The ATM did not delivered any currency, but delivered balance slip about the current balance of his bank account and the said the said amount of Rs.5000/- was debited from the complainant saving bank account.  The complainant contacted the customer care immediately and made a complaint about the non-delivery of currency note intended to be withdraw by the complainant.  Again the complainant approached the ATM for getting the information about the current balance on his account on the same day and again the said amount of Rs.5000/- was debited from the complainant account even though the ATM did not delivered any currency.    Then he approached the opposite party and gave a complaint on 20.11.2007 but no reply was given by the opposite party.  On 3.1.08 the complainant sent legal notice Ex.A4, but even after acknowledged the  said legal notice the opposite party refused the lawful claim of the complainant.  On the contra the Learned counsel for the opposite party would contend that after through and proper scrutiny of the ATM machine daily reconcile statement and data sheet it reveals that the complainant had withdrawn the said Rs.5000/- from his saving account without any flawless operation.  Further excess cash balance in the said ATM machine on 10.11.07 it will also shows that the complainant had withdrawn the said amount of Rs.5000/- from his account.   Hence the complainant’s allegation that the ATM machine did not deliver Rs.5000/- from his account is false.   Therefore there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party. 

7.         According to the complainant that  on 10.11.2007 the complainant inserted his ATM card provided by the opposite party for withdrawal of a  sum of Rs.5000/- by following instructions for withdrawal of money specified and displayed by the ATM.    The ATM did not delivered  any currency but delivered balance slip about the current balance of his bank account and the said amount of Rs.5000/- was debited from the complainant saving bank account.   To prove the above contention the complainant did not filed the delivered balance slip about the current balance of his account on the said date.  The opposite party filed Ex.B1 the switch report of the said ATM during the relevant period.  In the switch report  ATM NO., DATE AND TIMEOF WITHDRAWAL, ATM CARD NO. WITHDRAWAL SERIAL NO., ACCOUNT NO., AND THE RESULT OF TRANSACTION  are given.  It is an auto printed showing the records continuously.  A perusal of the said document it is seen that on 10.11.2007 at 1. 23 p.m. in Serial No.2647 the complainant using his ATM debit card No.039501506575 and withdrawn Rs.5000/-.  A perusal of Ex.B2 it is seen that on 10.11.2007 the ATM I.D NO.1241 was used to withdraw the amount.  From the further  perusal of Ex.A6 & Ex.B3 saving bank of the account to the complainant for the period from 1.10.07 to 1.12.07 it is mentioned that on 10.11.2007 the complainant’s ATM card was used three times and withdrawn a sum of Rs.5000/- another Rs.5000/- and another Rs.3000/-.  Since no accepted  material available on the part of the complainant to believe his version.  On the other hand Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 & Ex.A6 looks reliable which says that the transaction was successful.  Hence we are of the view that the allegation of service deficiency on the part of the complainant is not proved and we answer the point accordingly.

8.         POINT NO: 2)

            In view of the findings given on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this complaint and we answer this point accordingly.

9.         In the result this complaint is dismissed.   Without costs.

Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 21^st  day of November  2011.

MEMBER-I                               MEMBER-II                                                     PRESIDENT.

List  of Documents:

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Opposite party’s Exhibits:   

MEMBER-I                                    MEMBER-II                               PRESIDENT.