Date of Filing:13.10.2008<br /> Date of Order:16.01.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2216 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> G.K. Ashok Kumar<br /> S/o. Late G.V. Krishna Iyer<br /> Working in Department of <br /> Atomic Energy, Bangalore<br /> Native of Gangapura Village<br /> Huthur Hoblic, Chamarahalli (P.O.)<br /> Kolar Taluk Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Branch Manager<br /> State Bank of India<br /> Atomic Energy Department Branch<br /> Nagarbhavi<br /> Bangalore Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> The facts of the case are that complainant has an account with the opposite party bank. He has sought withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/- at ATM, Persagad Soundathi on 22.10.2005. But, the amount has not been paid. The opposite party bank has deducted that amount of Rs. 5,000/- from his account without paying cash. Complainant lodged the complaint in writing on 13.11.2006 to SBI, Soundathi Branch and also written letter to Deputy General Manager, SBI. There is no response from the opposite party. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party through RPAD. Opposite party has put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Complaint is not filed within stipulated time. Therefore, same is liable to be dismissed for lack of limitation. Complainant has alleged that he has not used ATM, Persagad Soundathi on 22.10.2005. Infact, he has drawn sum of Rs. 5,000/- under transaction No. 5046 and again drawn sum of Rs. 5,000/- under transaction No. 5047 from his ATM Card at SPBB, Bangalore. Both the transactions were successful transactions and the amount is debited to the SB account of the complainant. Hence, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. The complainant was not present when the case was taken for order. Learned advocate for the opposite party submitted his arguments and documents have been produced by the opposite party. On perusal of the documents i.e. extract of journal print the two transactions TXN No. 5046 and 5047 are successful transactions. On 22.10.2005 at 10.42 a.m. Rs. 5,000/- was withdrawn from the ATM Card at SPBB, ATM counter, Bangalore. Accordingly, the opposite party bank has debited the amount from the SB account of the complainant on 22.10.2005 itself. The allegation of the complainant that he has used the ATM card at Persagad Soundathi on 22.10.2005 appears to be false. The complainant has made inordinate delay in filing the complaint. As per the complainant the cause of action arose to him on 22.10.2005 and on that day he has used the ATM Card. Where as the complainant has filed the present complaint before this forum on 13.10.2008. The complaint is lodged after more than two years of alleged cause. Therefore, on the point of limitation itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party bank has produced documentary proof that the two ATM transactions dated 22.10.2005 were successful transactions. There appears no merit in the allegations of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed both on the point of limitation and also on merits. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 4. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 5. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />