Complaint filed on: 03.08.2016
Complaint Disposed on:15.04.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.88/2016
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Mrs.Pavana M.D.,
W/o Pavan R.C.,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Behind Sippani Saw Mill,
Gavanahalli, Rampura Post,
Chikkamagaluru.
(By Sri/Smt. M.R.Manjunatha, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1.The Branch Manager,
Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
A.D.B Branch,
P.B No.2, I.G Road,
Chikkamgalur City.
2.The Manager,
Canara Bank,
Tumkur Branch,
(OP-1 - By Sri/Smt. T.R.Harish, Advocate)
(OP-2 – Exparte)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP No.1 & 2 alleging deficiency in service in debiting Rs.10,000/- from her S/B account without successful withdrawal transaction at Op no.2 ATM. Hence, prays for direction against Op no.1 & 2 to credit the said amount of Rs.10,000/- along with 18% interest and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
She has maintaining S/B account at Op no.1 bank vide account no.1332500103454901 and Op no.1 bank issued ATM card in order to withdraw at any ATMs. Such being the case, the complainant is regularly transacting her S/B account without any interruption through ATM transaction, but on 18.04.2016 at about 05.18 pm complainant entered into ATM counter belongs to Op no.2 bank situated at S.I.T., Tumkur and operated the ATM machine in order to withdraw sum of Rs.3,000/-, but the said ATM machine waited for about 10 minutes and any money was not delivered by the said ATM machine, the complainant came out from the said ATM counter subsequently, there afterwards she received a message from Op no.1 bank stating that Rs.10,000/- has been encashed from the said ATM and the amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from her S/B account. Immediately the complainant rushed to ATM counter of the Op no.2 and verified that any amount was delivered by the said ATM machine and also noticed that no person was entered after her transaction till verification. The complainant immediately tried to complain about the same to Op no.1 & 2 bank, but at that time the bank was closed.
On 19.04.2016 i.e., on next day there was a holiday due to Mahaveer Jayanthi, the complainant was not able to give a complaint to Op no.1 & 2 bank in this regard. There afterwards on 20.04.2016 the complainant giving a complaint by filling up the required form issued by Op no.1 and Op no.1 had given the I.D bearing no.234002 dated 20.04.2016 and assured that the matter will be solved within the week, but at utter surprise the complaint given by complainant was rejected by Op no.1 bank on 28.04.2016.
The complainant has not received any amount from the said ATM, inspite of that Op no.1 had debited an amount of Rs.10,000/- from her S/B account. Ultimately, complainant issued a legal notice dated 06.06.2016 to Op no.1 to credit the said amount, for which Op no.1 bank had replied untenably on 18.06.2016 stating that they are not responsible for the said transaction. Subsequently, complainant approached Op no.2 bank for non-delivery of the amount from ATM machine and also requested to refund an amount of Rs.10,000/-. In this regard complainant also issued legal notice to Op no.2 and called upon them to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/-. But inspite of refund of the said amount Op no.2 bank also issued reply dated 24.06.2016 untenably.
Hence, complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service in wrongly debiting an amount of Rs.10,000/- from her S/B account and non-delivery of the any amount from ATM of the Op no.2 bank. Hence, prays for direction against Op no.1 & 2 bank to refund the said amount with interest and compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op no.1 appeared through his counsel and filed version. Op no.2 not appeared before this forum to answer the allegation, hence, Op no.2 placed exparte.
4. Op no.1 in his version has contended that the complainant is maintaining a savings bank account with this Op bearing no.1332500103454901 and on 18.04.2016 a sum of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by using ATM card, the said amount was withdrawn from ATM machine of Op no.2 bank, Tumkur branch, Tumkur, whenever a withdrawal has made as per the established practice and request registered by the complainant the message about withdrawal will automatically reach the consumer, but they do not know that the complainant rushed to the ATM counter after receipt of the message and noticed no other person entered into ATM after her transaction.
On receipt of the complaint given by complainant this Op contacted Op no.2 and in turn Op no.2 after making enquiries with reconciliation team, Mumbai, have furnished the statement showing the transaction at the said ATM of Op no.2 and it is confirmed that the complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- through ATM card issued by this Op. Therefore, it is cleared that the complainant has withdrawn the said amount on 18.04.2016, the withdrawal of the said amount is also recorded in the computerized books of accounts maintained by this Op. Hence, this Op denies that complainant had not received any amount after her attempt for withdrawal of the amount.
This Op do not admit that complainant made attempt to withdraw Rs.3,000/- only on 18.04.2016. The electronic journal maintained by this Op clearly discloses that there was a transaction of Rs.10,000/- which was successful and there is no transaction for Rs.3,000/- from ATM card of the complainant. As such, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from S/B account of the complainant. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op and they are not liable to pay any amount and compensation claimed by complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.7. Op no.1 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 & R.2.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
9. There is no dispute that complainant is having a S/B account bearing no.1332500103454901 at Op no.1 bank at Chikkamagalur and there is also no dispute that complainant is using ATM card issued by Op no.1 bank for the purpose of withdrawal of the amount from S/B account, the only dispute raised by the complainant is that on 18.04.2016 when she attempted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,000/- from ATM machine maintained by Op no.2 bank at Tumkur, she has not received any amount, but without receipt of the any amount she received a message from Op no.1 bank stating that Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn from the said ATM and the same amount was debited from her account. Complainant further alleges that she rushed immediately to the ATM counter to know whether the amount was delivered by ATM machine or not and she also noticed that no person entered after her transaction took place till she went inside for verification. Subsequently, she complained with respect to the wrong debit of the amount from her S/B account and non-delivery of the any amount from the ATM machine, for which Op no.1 bank have wrote a letter stating that the amount was delivered and transaction made by complainant on 18.04.2016 was successful as per their computer generated journal and submitted they are not liable to refund or credit an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the S/B account of the complainant.
Op no.2 inspite of receipt of the notice from this Forum had not appeared before this Forum to answer the allegations made by complainant. The complainant produced office copy of the legal notice issued against Op no.1 bank marked as Ex.P.1, reply to the said notice marked as Ex.P.2 and another legal notice issued against Op no.2 dated 20.06.2010 marked as Ex.P.3, reply to the said legal notice issued by Op no.2 bank marked as Ex.P.4. Further complainant produced two acknowledgment dues marked as Ex.P.5 & 6 and pass book maintained by Op no.1 bank to show a wrong debit of Rs.10,000/- on 18.04.2016 marked as Ex.P.7 in support of her claim. Op no.1 also produced computer generated transaction slip marked as Ex.R.1, statement of accounts of the complainant marked as Ex.R.2, except these documents Op no.1 bank had not produced any other documents/materials in support of their defense. On going through the reply issued by Op no.2 bank as per Ex.P.4 we noticed that Op no.2 bank had categorically admitted there was one failed transaction on particular day and also intimated the complainant that the matter was referred to higher authority for further action and they suggested the complainant that they will intimate the same in subsequent time. Except this letter Op no.2 had not made any transaction or correspondence with complainant to inform whether an amount of Rs.10,000/- was delivered by ATM machine maintained by Op no.2 bank at Tumkur. Further Op no.1 has produced computer generated transaction journal which bears no signature marked as Ex.R.1 and we noticed in the said document there is no clear information with respect to the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 18.04.2016 maintained by Op no.2 bank at Tumkur. We noticed the said document is not disclosing entire transaction took place at that particular ATM machine situated at Tumkur maintained by Op no.2 bank, there is no clear information with respect to the failure transaction at ATM situated at Tumkur. Hence, the said document is not useful to establish that the complainant has succeeded in receiving an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the said ATM machine. The Op no.1 bank neither produced video footage nor entire transaction report of the particular day i.e., 18.04.2016 to establish that the complainant had made a successful transaction to withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/-. It is the duty of the Op no.2 bank to answer the allegations made by complainant, but except issuing reply notice to the complainant’s notice Op no.2 had not made any clarification with respect to the transaction made by complainant. Hence, we are of the opinion that complainant has not received any amount from the ATM machine at Tumkur maintained by Op no.2 bank and further in the absence of any materials/documents we cannot believe that complainant had successfully withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the said ATM of Op no.2 bank. In this regard we hereby cited a decision rendered by Uttarakhand Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, reported in CPJ February 2017 part 2 volume 1 page number 14(a) as below:
HDFC BANK & ANR. V/s NEERAJ KUMAR
ATM machine – Cash not came out – Account debited – Deficiency proved.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 15 – Banking & Financial Institution Services – ATM machine – Cash not came out – Account debited – Deficiency in service – District Forum allowed complaint - Hence appeal – Non-supply of video footage had no bearing no claim of complainant – Report of writer safeguard that physical cash was talied with ATM counters and there were no difference and found no cash, is not signed by any authorized signatory – This report has no authenticity – Appellants could not prove that respondent has received cash from ATM – Appellant’s investigation team has not given a proper investigation report – Impugned judgment upheld.
Accordingly, in this complaint also Op no.2 had not produced any video footage or any other documents to establish that the ATM machine was delivered an amount of Rs.10,000/- and at the same time complainant has received cash from the said ATM machine. Hence, we are of the strong opinion that Op no.2 rendered deficiency in service in not refunding an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was wrongly debited from the S/B account of the complainant.
10. Further Op no.1 bank has merely debited an amount of Rs.10,000/- as soon as they received an intimation from the Op no.2 ATM machine. We found there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1 bank with respect to the transaction made by complainant and Op no.2. It is only Op no.2 bank has to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and Op no.2 bank are also liable to pay a compensation of another Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service in not refunding an amount of Rs.10,000/- as soon as the legal notice was received. Further Op no.2 is also liable to pay litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- OP no.2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand Rupees only) along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand Rupees only) for deficiency in service and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- The complaint against Op no.1 is hereby dismissed.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 15th day of April 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Office copy of the legal notice issued to Op no.1 dtd:6.6.16.
Ex.P.2 - Reply to the notice dtd:18.6.2016.
Ex.P.3 - Office copy of the legal notice issued to Op no.2 dtd:20.6.16.
Ex.P.4 - Reply to the notice issued by Op no.2 dtd:24.6.2016.
Ex.P.5 & 6 - Two postal acknowledgment due.
Ex.P.7 - Original passbook of Karnataka Bank.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex.R.1 - Computer generated transaction slip .
Ex.R.2 - Statement of accounts of the complainant.
Dated:15.04.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
