BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Friday the 30th day of April , 2010
C.C.No. 162/08
Between:
P.V.Prasad, S/o P.V.Subbaiah, Teacher ,
Z.P.High School, Ulindakonda, Kallur Mandal, Present residing at D.No. 41/264-ID, Upstair, Kothapeta,Kurnool. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad (Main),
H.No.40/393 Upstairs, Park Road, Kurnool-518 001.
2. The Branch Manager, Treasury Branch, State Bank of India,
H.No.5/50, Collectorate, Kurnool-518 002. …Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P.Siva Sudharshan , Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. A.V.Subramanyam , Advocate for opposite party No.1 and D.A.Anees Ahmed , Advocate for opposite party No. 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramiah, President)
C.C. No.162/08
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties
a) to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- jointly and severally
b) to sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service on their part
c) to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the act of opposite parties
d) to pay costs of the complaint
e) and to grant for such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant is having SB account bearing No. 10937240070 in opposite party No. 2 bank. The complainant is also having ATM card issued by opposite party No. 2 bank . On 03-07-2007 the complainant went opposite party No. 1 ATM point at Raj Vihar ,Kurnool and operated for withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- . He got a response that it was unable to process. The complainant second time operated for withdrawal of Rs.5,000/-. The response was unable to process. The said two transactions are shown in the complainant pass book. On 03-08-2007 the complainant approached opposite party No. 2 for with holding an amount of Rs.5,000/- in his account. With holding of Rs.5,000/- by opposite party No. 2 is illegal. On 31-10-2007 the complainant issued a letter to the opposite parties to arrange the amount of Rs.5,000/- . The opposite parties gave a reply with false allegations With held amount of Rs.5,000/- was transferred by opposite party No. 2 to opposite party No. 1 on 31-10-2007 . There was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties . Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence the complaint .
3. The opposite party No. 1 filed written version stating that the complainant is not maintainable .It denied various allegations in the compliant. Opposite party No.1s ATM centre is located at Raj Vihar center , Kurnool . ATM service is provided at free of cost to the customers of all SB Group customers .There is no customer relationship in between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 branch. Hence the complaint is not maintainable . On 03-07-2007 an amount of Rs.5,000/- was withdrawn from ATM center of opposite party No. 1 situated at Raj Vihar center, Kurnool by the complainant . As seen from the JP log record it is clear that the ATM card holder had with drawn an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 03-07-2007 at 18.28 hours . On verification it is observed that due to some technical problem the withdrawn amount of Rs.5,000/- by the complainant was not credited to opposite party No. 1 from the account of the card holder . The said fact was brought to the notice of opposite party No. 2 and requested to credit the amount of Rs.5,000/- to opposite party No. 1 account .After verifying the records opposite party No. 2 paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to opposite party No. 1 by way of banker’s cheque . The complainant not filed the customer slip regarding the transactions of Rs.5,000/- dated 03-07-2007 to know the truth of the contentions of the complainant . The complainant is not a consumer of opposite party No. 1 and the complaint is not maintainable.
4. Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable . If any customer operates the ATM machine he will get a customer slip from the machine showing the transaction. Customers slip is the proof positive to say whether the customer with drawn amount or not. In the absence of the customers slip the claim of the complainant that he has not withdrawn Rs.5,000/- on 03-07-2007 is doubtfully . Basing on J.P log report , opposite party No. 1 advised opposite party No. 2 to remit Rs.5,000/-. As the complainant has with drawn Rs.5,000/- through ATM center of opposite party No. 1 , opposite party No. 2 remitted Rs.5,000/- to the account of opposite party No. 1 . Opposite party No. 2 acted upon the advise of opposite party No. 1 only. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No. 2 . It may be due to mechanical problem the debit entry in the complainant’s pass book is not recorded . There is no cause of action for the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A6 are marked . On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B4 are marked.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the
respondents/ opposite parties ?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed
for?
(iii) To what relief?
Both parties filed written arguments.
7. Point No.1 & 2: Admittedly the complainant is having SB account bearing No.. 10937240070 in opposite party No. 2 bank. Ex.A1 is the pass book of the complainant . The complainant is also having ATM card issued by opposite party No. 2 bank. It is the case of the complainant that on 03-07-2007 he operated ATM machine of opposite party No. 1 for Rs.5,000/-through ATM card issued by opposite party No. 2 and that the response was unable to process. It is not the case of the complainant that he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 03-07-2007 through ATM card through ATM machine belonging to opposite party No. 1 bank. The complainant to show that he did not receive cash of Rs.5,000/- from ATM machine of opposite party No.1 relied on entries in Ex.A1 pass book issued by opposite party No. 2 . As seen from the entries in Ex.A1 pass book it is very clear that on 03-07-2007 the account of the complainant was debited with Rs.6,000/- and also credited with Rs.6,000/- . The account of the complainant was debited with an amount with Rs.5,000/- and also credited of Rs.5,000/- on the same day i.,e 03-07-2007 . According to the complainant as no amount was received by him on 03-07-2007 the transactions of Rs.5,000/- is shown as withdrawn and deposited . The complainant also filed Ex.A5 and A6 statement of account of his SB account maintained by opposite party No. 2 . In Ex.A5 and A6 also it is shown that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was withdrawn and deposited on 03-07-2007 . As seen from the entries in Ex.A1 , A5 ,A6 it is very clear that the complainant did not receive Rs.5,000/- through ATM machine of opposite party No. 1 situated at Raj Vihar center , Kurnool.
8. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant on 03-07-2007 has withdrawn of Rs.5,000/- through ATM of opposite party No. 1 . Had the complainant received Rs.5,000/- from ATM , the same would have been recorded in the pass book of the complainant and also in the statement of account maintained by the opposite party No. 2 . As already stated there is no entry in Ex.A1, A5, A6 that the complainant received Rs.5,000/- on 03-08-2007 through ATM machine of opposite party No. 1 . No doubt the complainant did not choose to file customers slip received by him for the transactions of Rs.5,000/- dated 03-07-2007 . Merely because the complainant has not chosen to file customers slip it cannot be presumed that he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 03-07-2007 from ATM machine of opposite party No. 1. According to opposite party No. 1 the transactions dated 03-07-2007 was successful and the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.5,000/- and the same can be seen in the JP log record. The opposite party No. 1 filed Ex.B1 copy of J.P log register relating to tax No. 5702 for Rs.5,000/- dated 03-07-2007 . It is mentioned in Ex.B1 that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was withdrawn. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that as per the entries in Ex A1 , Ex.A5, Ex.A6 the complainant operated ATM machine twice but opposite party No. 1 did not choose to file the transactions relating tax No. 5702 for Rs.6,000/- dated 03-07-2007 . Ex.B2 and B3 do not disclose the transactions relating to tax No. 5701 for Rs.6,000/- . Merely basing on the entries in Ex.B1 to B3 it cannot be said that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.5,000/- from ATM machine of opposite party No. 1 on 03-07-2007 .
9. As per the records of opposite party No. 2 and also as per the entries inEx.A1 pass book it is clear that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was debited and credited immediately on 03-07-2007 . The entries in Ex.A1 go to show that the complainant not received an amount of Rs.5,000/- from ATM center of OP.No.1 on 03-07-2007
10. Admittedly an amount of Rs.5,000/- belonging to the complainant was with held by opposite party No. 2. According to opposite party No. 2 an amount of Rs.5,000/- was remitted to the account of opposite party No. 1 on the advise of opposite party No. 1 . Opposite party No. 2 acted on the advise of opposite party No.1 and sent the amount of Rs.5,000/- belonging to the complainant. The records maintained by opposite party No.2 do not disclose that the complainant has withdrawn Rs.5,000/- from ATM machine of the opposite party No.1 on 03-07-2007. From Ex.B1 to B3 it cannot be safely concluded that the complainant withdraw an amount of Rs.5,000/- form ATM machine of opposite party No.1 on 03-07-2007..
11. Opposite party No.2 is negligent in sending the amount of Rs.5,000/- belonging to the complainant to opposite party No. 1. . There is no relationship between the complainant and opposite party No. 1. Complainant is not the customer of opposite party No. 1 bank. Therefore opposite party No. 1 cannot be made liable for the negligence on the part of opposite party No. 2 . As already stated the records maintained by opposite party No. 2 do not disclose that the complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 03-07-2007
. It is an account of the negligent act of opposite party No. 2 ,the complainant was forced to file the complaint. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No. 2. Therefore the opposite party No. 2 is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant
12.Point No.3:- In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing opposite party No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant with interest at 6% from 03-07-2007 till the date of payment along with costs Rs.500/- . The complainant against opposite party No. 1 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of April, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Pass book of the complainant 10937240070.
Ex.A2. ATM card (original) of the complainant.
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice dated 31-10-2007.
Ex.A4. Reply of OP to Ex.A3 dated 20-11-2007.
Ex.A5. Statement of account No.10937240070 of Prasad
Venkateswara Pujari dated 18-08-2009 issued by OP.No.2.
Ex.A6. Statement of account No.10937240070 of Prasad
Venkateswara Punjari dated 22-05-2009 issued by OP.No.2.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Relevant portion in JP log register.
Ex.B2. Transaction dated 03-07-2007 time 17.55
Ex.B3. Transaction dated 03-07-2007 time 17.56
Ex.B4. Copy of letter dated 17-11-2007 of OP.No.2 to Chief
Manager , Treasury Bank, Kurnool.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
