Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/95/2016

B.Jayalakshmi, W/o. B.Munaswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Saptagiri Grameena Bank, N.G.Os Colony Branch, - Opp.Party(s)

M.Jayasankar

03 May 2018

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 10-10-2016                                                                                                               Order Date:  03-05-2018

 

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

Present: - Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 THURSDAY THE THIRD DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

C.C.No.95/2016

Between

B.Jayalakshmi, W/o. B. Muniswamy,

D.No. 18-1-46 A/9, Prasanthi Nagar,

K.T.Road, Tirupati.                                                                   … Complainant

 

And

1. The Branch Manager,

Sapthagiri Grameena Bank,

N.G.O’s Colony,

K.T.Road,

Tirupati.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Syndicate Bank, V.V.Mahal Road,

Tirupati (added as per orders of in I.A.No.58/2017).    … Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 12.04.2018 and upon perusing the complaint, chief affidavit, written version, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of  Sri. M.Jayasankar, counsel for the complainant, and Sri. M. Balakrishnama Naidu, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and Sri. N.Manohar, counsel for the opposite party No.2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant and trace who withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from the account of the complainant on 22.05.2016 and take necessary action against them , to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay costs of the complaint.

         2.The brief facts of the case are:   the complainant is having Savings Bank Account in opposite party No.1’s bank i.e. Saptagiri Grameena Bank, NGO’s Colony, K.T. Road, Tirupati and she has been operating the said account from August, 2014 till date. The complainant further submits that by 20.05.2016 she was having balance of Rs.10,380/- in her account. Subsequently on 22.05.2016 the complainant’s husband one B. Munuswamy went to Bank of Baroda ATM and withdrawn Rs.300/- from the ATM. Subsequently they came to know on the same day Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn from her account and showed the remaining balance of Rs.80/- in her account. The complainant further submits that, her husband prior to withdrawing the amount of Rs.300/- from the Bank of Baroda, he tried to withdraw Rs.300/- from the opposite party No.2’s bank (Syndicate Bank) but the money was not dispensed in the said ATM, hence he withdrawn from the Bank of Baroda. The complainant further submits that after came to the knowledge about the illegal withdrawn of Rs.10,000/- from her account, she approached opposite party No.1 and gave oral complaint  and the opposite party No.1 promised that they will pursue the matter, but they failed to give any reply. Hence she gave written complaint on 25.05.2016 to the opposite party No.1 and chief Manager, Head Office, of Saptagiri Grameena Bank, chittoor. After receipt of the written complaint also the opposite parties failed to pursue the matter and failed to resolve the same which is nothing but deficiency in service.

        3.  The complainant further submits that, she and her husband went to opposite party No.2’s ATM and they observed that there is no display on the screen in the system , after inserting the ATM card by her husband, he tried by  pressing the touch buttons, but the amount was not dispensed. Hence they withdrawn Rs.300/- from Bank of Baroda ATM.  The complainant further submits that on 03.09.2016 the complainant gave written complaint to the Ombudsman of the first opposite party bank. But the Ombudsman also failed to sort out the matter and simply informed that the amount was withdrawn successfully in the ATM and failed to trace the person who illegally withdrawn amount, which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

         4. The opposite party No.1 filed his written version by denying the contentions  of the complainant and further stated that the General Manager of Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Naidu Buildings, Chittoor is not an Ombudsman of the opposite party No.1.The Ombudsman of the opposite party is Reserve Bank of India, Saifabad, Hyderabad .She has not made any complaint to the ombudsman. The opposite party No.1 further stated that, immediately after receipt of the complaint from the complainant on 25.05.2016 the opposite party No.1 made a representation to the concerned authorities. The Indian Bank, Head Office, Chennai was stating that “the claim rejected by the other bank on 08.06.2016 as successful transaction”. The proof of rejection provided by the bank and same was intimated to the complainant immediately. Hence,the opposite party No.1 gave a reasonable explanation about the withdrawal of the money from the account of the complainant. After receipt of the complaint the opposite party No.1 made a representation to the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank about the complaint given by the complainant and requested them for providing C.C. Footage dt: 22.05.2016 in the ATM. But they gave reply to the opposite party No.1 that on 22.05.2016 the amount was withdrawn by the complainant itself, with regarding the C.C.TV Footage they will inform to the legal department and hand over the C.C. Footage later, the same was intimated to the complainant immediately. But the complainant was not added the Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, Tirupati as a necessary party in the above complaint and also the opposite party further submits that, after receipt of the request made by the complainant they gave a proper reply, hence there is no deficiency in service on part of them and further stated that the complainant only withdrawn amount of Rs.10,000/- on 22.05.2016 through Syndicate Bank ATM, V.V.Mahal Road, Tirupati.  .Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of them and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        5.The opposite party No.2 added as per order in I.A.No.58/2017 and filed the written version by denying the averments made in the complaint by the complainant and further stated that till the date of the receipt of the notice from the Honorable Forum this opposite party did not know anything about the facts of the case and the alleged withdrawal of amount of RS.10,000/- on 22.05.2016. As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India the recorded C.C. Footage can be maintained for six months thereafter it would be automatically deleted from the C.C. Camera as such after lapse of stipulated time, on receipt of the notice from the Honorable Forum only this opposite party came to know the fact of withdrawal, by that time, the recorded C.C. Footages dt: 22.05.2016 were deleted and it is not possible for this opposite party to verify whether any amount was withdrawn from the ATM of this opposite party. As per recorded data on 22.05.2016 the EDC maintained on CBS branch for tallying of ATM cash with balance and there is no difference and thus there is no excess balance from records maintained by this opposite party. A copy is submitted for kind perusal of the Honorable Forum. It is further submitted this opposite party has impleaded in I.A.58/2017 and there is no prayer in the implead petition to direct them to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant which was withdrawn from the account of the complainant on 22.05.2016, without prayer by the complainant in the I.A. petition the complainant cannot seek any compensation from this opposite party in the main case. The complaint is vague to the extent of this opposite party and they never received any complaint from the complainant within stipulated time for verification, except notice from this Honorable forum at belated stage.

        As such there are no merits in the complaint on this opposite party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party as there is no deficiency in service on part of them.

           6. The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex: A1 to A9. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 one T.Manohar, S/o. T.Venkatakrishnaiah, Senior Manager filed his chief affidavit and no documents were marked and on behalf of the opposite party No.2 one P.Dhanunjaya Raghavendra Kumar, S/o. Vijay Bhaskar Rao, Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Main Branch filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1 and B2 were marked. Both the parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        7. Now the points for consideration are:-

              (i)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties

                    towards the complainant?           

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?       

             (iii)  To what Relief?

                     8.Point No (i):-    The main case of the complainant is, her husband on 22.05.2016 tried to take out the money from the ATM of syndicate bank using ATM card issued  by the opposite party no.1 where she had an account.  After his attempt no money came out of the ATM. After that he went to the ATM of Bank of Baroda and withdrawn an amount of Rs.300/- and remaining balance is shown as Rs.80./- but by the date of 20.05.16, her account  balance is Rs.10,380/- in her account. When she came to know that Rs.10,000/- has been debited in her account, she along with her husband made complaints to opposite party No.1.  As the opposite party No.1 did not taken any steps to resolve her complaints even after legal notice issued by her which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.1.  

                    The complainant further submits that, they gave written complaint to the ombudsman of opposite party No.1, but they simply informed that the amount was withdrawn at ATM only and they did not inform in which ATM the amount was withdrawn and who has withdrawn that amount and not directed the opposite party No.1 to return the complainant’s amount  of Rs.10,000/-.  Thus the complainant did not satisfy with the information of the ombudsman and also the complainant stated that it is the duty of the first opposite party should trace who withdrew the amount of Rs.10,000/-from her account. But the opposite party No.1 failed  to trace out the same and not gave the proper reply, which  is also nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.1. Hence she filed the present complaint.

                     9.The counsel for opposite party No.1 stated that after receipt of the complaint from the complainant the opposite party No.1 made representation to the branch manager syndicate bank, Tirupati and requested them for the C.C. Footage dated 22.05.2016 in the ATM.  But they also replied to the opposite party that on 22.05.2016, the amount was withdrawn by the complainant itself and with regard to the c.c. footage and they informed to their legal department and handed over the C.C. Footage later. Same was intimated to the complainant.  The counsel further argued that the complainant was withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 22.05.2016.  But wantonly stating that they have not withdrawn the amount of Rs.10,000/-. Hence the opposite party is reserving the right to file a criminal complaint against the complainant.  Hence the complainant &husband was withdrawn the amount of Rs.10,000/- on 22.05.2016 through the ATM and suppressed the real facts and filed complaint in order to get wrongful gain.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                   The counsel for opposite party No.2 argued that, they have been added as a party in the present case as per orders in I.A.58/2017 and till the  date of receipt of notice from this Honorable Forum, they did not know the facts of the case and the alleged withdrawal of amount  of Rs.10,000 on 22.05.16 and further stated that as per  the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of  India, the recorded C.C. Footages can be maintained for 6 months and thereafter it would be automatically deleted  from C.C. Camera.  Hence it is not possible to verify the C.C. footage as the said alleged transaction was made on 22.05.2016 and further stated that, as per recorded data from 19.05.16 to 27.05.2016 under Ex:B1 & B2 the E.D.C maintained at C.B.S branch for tallying of ATM cash with balance and there is no difference  and thus there is no excess balance as per records maintained by this opposite party and prayed  this forum to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency in service on part of their bank. Moreover, the complaint is vague to the extent of this opposite party bank and they never received any complaint from the complainant with in stipulated time for verification, except the notice from this Honorable Forum at belated stage, as such there are no merits in the complaint against the bank. The complainant filed a complaint before ombudsman, the same is not considered by them as there are no merits in that complaint.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismiss against them.

                      10. After perusing the records submitted by both the parties, it is found that as per ExA2 &A3 the amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn in the ATM and also Rs.300/- was also withdrawn on the same day.  As per Ex.A4 letter dated 25.05.16 and ExA5 letter to the chief manager Grameena bank, it was clearly mentioned that the complainant came to know about the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 22.05.16 itself, when she withdrawn an amount of Rs.300/- from the bank of Baroda, but the complainant has not filed any document showing the proof that he did not receive the cash when her husband used the ATM card.  The complainant could have filed the ATM slip/receipts which come out from the ATM after using the ATM card.  It is also not clear, whether the complainant had her phone linked with her bank account,  so that  any transaction by the ATM would come on his phone through S.M.S. The complainant had not filed any proof showing that, when her husband used her ATM card and the money was not transacted.

                      In National Commission judgment in Satyanarayana Pandey Vs State Bank of India & Others in R.P.No.814 of 2016 decided on 27.06.2017 reported in IV(2017) CPJ.199 (NC) has observed that:-  Generally ATM card and ATM machines are safe and if transaction is not successful, it is shown on screen on ATM as well as on slip issued by the ATM. Even if some money is transacted but not delivered, same is reversed to account of ATM card holder. In the present case also the complainant has not filed ATM slips of transactions of 22.05.2016. On the other hand, there is ample proof as per ExB1&B2 and ExA8&A9 to show that the transactions were successful andRs.10,000/- were delivered to the person using the ATM card.  If the transaction is not successful, it will show on the screen of the monitor as well as on the slip issued by the ATM.  Even  if some money is transacted  but not delivered, the same is reversed to the account  of the account holder. As the documents of the bank shows the transactions were successful and Rs10,000/- were delivered to the person used the ATM Card.  No proof has been filed by the complainant, that her husband tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.300/- on 22.05.2016 in opposite party no.2’s bank and money was not dispensed. “The complainant relied upon a decision of A.P. State Commission in F.A.No.44/2006 in Sri. V.Kumara Swamy Vs. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank. But the facts of the said case are not similar to the facts of the present case.

                    11. The complainant in her complaint itself stated that, her husband B.Muniswamy went to the ATM of bank of Baroda and withdrawn an amount of Rs.300/- on 22.05.2016 and they came to know about the alleged withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/-  from her account  in syndicate bank ATM. In the same complaint in Para.3(a) she has stated that herself and her husband went to the 2nd opposite party’s bank ATM,  at that time there is no display on the screen, her husband inserted the ATM card and pressed the buttons, but the screen was not opened/on.  Subsequently they went for shopping and after some time  on the same day they withdrawn an amount of Rs.300/- from the bank of Baroda.

                    The contentions of the complainant are self contradictory and also the complainant has not filed affidavit of her husband  who operated the ATM machine to support her contention, when the alleged transaction was said to be done by her husband.  Hence on the above circumstances, we cannot find fault and deficiency in service on part of opposite parties as the complainant failed to prove her case with supportive documents.  Hence on the above circumstances the complaint is dismissed.

                    12.Point No(ii):-  As the point No.1 is discussed that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties the question of entitlement would not arise.

        13.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussions on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2, hence the complaint is dismissed.

          In the result, complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 03^rd day of May, 2018.

             Sd/-                                                                                                            Sd/-

    Lady Member                                                                                                         President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:   B. Jayalakshmi (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: T. Manohar (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2: P. Dhananjaya Raghavendra Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of first page of my bank (Saptagiri Grameena Bank) pass book. Dt: 22.08.2014.
	Photo copy of my bank transactions.
	Photo copy of Statement of account of me. Dt: 25.05.2016.
	Photo copy of Letter to opposite party sent by me. Dt: 25.05.2016.
	Photo copy of Letter to The Chief Manager, Saptagiri Grameena Bank Head Office, Chittoor, sent by me. Dt: 25.05.2016.
	Acknowledgement Cards 3 in Number. Dt: 26.05.2016, 06.09.2016.
	Photo copy of Complaint against opposite party to ombudsman of opposite party bank. Dt: 03.09.2016.
	Information letter sent by ombudsman to me. Dt: 29.09.2016.
	Photo copy of E-mail conversation of opposite party bank. Dt: 13.06.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Format of certificate to be maintained at CBS branches with ATMs for tallying of ATM cash with GL Balance. Dt: 19.05.2016.
	Photo copy of Format of certificate to be maintained at CBS branches with ATMs for tallying of ATM cash with GL Balance. Dt:27.05.2016.

 

      Sd/-

                          President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant,    

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 and 2.