BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 102/2012.
THIS THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Sri. B. Anjaneya S/o. Durgappa, 31 years,
Business, Nagamani Offset Printers, R/o. Sirwar, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur- 584 101.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
S.S. Bldg Lingasagur Road, Sirwar, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur, Karnataka
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Lingasugur Road, Sirwar, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur.
Date of institution :- 17-12-2012.
Date of disposal :- 29-08-2013
Complainant represented by Sri. T.M. Swamy, Advocate
Opposite No-1 represented by Sri. Basavaraj Sakri, Advocate.
Opposite No-2 did not appear before the court.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondents U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is having an S.B. Account with Respondent No-1 provided with ATM card. On 26-01-2012 the complainant intending to withdraw Rs. 5,000/- from his account through ATM used the card at ATM point of Respondent No-2. However at the first instance the money was not dispensed with. When he tried for the second time Rs. 5,000/- was dispensed with. Later when he approached the Respondent No.1’s, bank he came to know that there was double debit of Rs. 5,000/- in his account for the same transaction dt. 26-01-2012. The complainant complained about the same to Respondent No-1 at which time he promised to rectify the mistake but did not. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- was not credited to the account of the complainant. This caused mental agony to the complainant. Therefore he got issued legal notice to the Respondent No-1, the Regional Manager and its Switch Center to rectify the mistake regarding mistake committed by debiting of Rs. 5,000/- in his account, for which the Respondent No-1 gave reply stating that Respondent No-2 has sent bankers cheque for Rs. 5,000/- which has been credited to the account of the complainant. However as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and Section 18 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 the Respondents are liable to pay penalty of Rs. 100 per day from 26-01-2012 which is mandatory and non compliance of the same amounts to deficiency in service. There was a delay of 280 days from 26-01-2012 till issuance of cheque dt. 09-10-2012 out of which 12 days has to be excluded which is granted for settling the claim. Therefore there is a delay of 268 days for which the complainant is entitled for Rs. 26,800/- as per the above referred provision of the Act. Therefore the complaint for grant of said relief along with other reliefs prayed for in the complaint.
3. The Respondent No-1 filed written version stating that the contents of Para 1 & 2 are all admitted to be true. The records of Respondent No-1 reveals that the ATM transaction No. 0661 at 10:24 AM in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and another transaction No. 0665 at 10:30 AM in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- were successful. However there was double debit in complainant’s account for transaction No. 0665. Accordingly ATM Switch Center debited of Rs. 5,000/-. The Respondent No-1 made bonafide, honest and sincere effort by bringing the matter to the notice of ATM Switch Center Mumbai several times and ultimately came to know the transaction is correct and accordingly same was informed to Respondent No-2 but the said bank did not convey any message in this regard. On personal visit of Respondent No-1 to the Respondent No-2 it was ascertained excess cash in sundry deposit account for which pay order in favour of Respondent No-1 for Rs. 5,000/- was issued and immediately the same was credited to the complainant’s account. Therefore no negligence or deficiency in service be attributed against Respondent No-1. The complainant was late in approaching the bank with complaint and as a practice he should have made the complaint immediately as per the ATM Policy Guidelines. All the allegations made against Respondent No-1 are all denied as false. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Though served with notice Respondent No-2 did not appear before the court.
5. Complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relied on six documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. The Respondent No-1 to prove his case filed affidavit of one A.N. Kulkarni, which is marked as RW-1 and no documents are marked.
6. Arguments heard on both sides.
7. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents against him.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
8. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In Negative
(2) In Negative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
9. There is no dispute with regard to double debit of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- in the account of complainant for single transaction carried out by him for withdrawl of Rs. 5,000/- from ATM of Respondent No-2. The Respondent No-1 clearly admitted in the written version that there was double debit in complainant’s account for transaction No. 0665 and accordingly Rs. 5,000/- was debited in the account of complainant. It is also on record that the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant after receiving report from ATM Switch Center. However the complainant filed the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 100 per day for the double debit till the date on which the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- was credited to his account i.e, for 268 days from 16-01-2012 to 09-10-2012 after excluding 12 days provided for settlement of claim, as per Payment and Settlement Systems Act of 2007, referred by the complainant. But on perusal of all the evidence placed before us it is found that the said delay of 268 days was not exclusively due to lapse on the part of the Respondent No-1. The complainant stated that after coming to know about double debit in his account, he approached the Respondent No-1 and orally informed about it. But the Respondent No-1 stated that the complainant was late in approaching the bank with complaint and as a practice he should have given complaint immediately as per the ATM Policy Guidelines. However there is no evidence except the self serving settlement of the complainant that he approached the Respondent No-1 immediately on coming to know about the double debit. But there is a mention in the complaint that the written complaint was given on 19-06-2012. The said copy of the letter is marked as Ex.P-3. It is true as per Ex.P-6 which is the copy of alleged Reserve Bank of India notification regarding ATMs the banks have been mandated to resolve the customer complaint by re-crediting the customers account within 7 working days from the date of complaint and for the delay caused beyond 7 days in re-crediting the customers account within 7 days or else the banks have to pay Rs. 100/- per day for delays beyond 7 working days and if the complaint is not lodged within 30 days of transaction, the customer is not entitled for any compensation for the delay in resolving his complaint. So, if the complaint is not lodged within 30 days of the transaction the customer is not entitled for compensation of Rs. 100 /-per day from the banker. In this case the complaint was lodged on 19-06-2012 as per the complaint and as per Ex.P-3 and alleged transaction was on 26-01-2012. Therefore the complaint being lodged beyond the period of 30 days the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The non payment of the same by the banker does not amount to deficiency in service. Accordingly this point is answered in the Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. As complainant has failed to prove his case and failed to prove deficiency in service against the Respondents he is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
11. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-08-2013)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
