Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/77/2015

K.Thirunavarthanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

R.Dhanalakshmi-com

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  24.04.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.08.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 28^th DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

C.C.NO.77/2015

 

 

Mr.K.Thirunavarthanan,

S/o.Sri.Late.K.Kothanda Raman,

HRO, “B” CST MO Chennai Sorting Divn,

Park Town, Chennai – 03.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, ATNK & Br,

Branch Code: 10674,

Head Quarters,

ATNK & AREA.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 19.05.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.R.Dhanalakshmi

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : J.Maheswari, R.Divya

         

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund a sum of Rs.5,000/- to him and also compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with litigation charges u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is a customer of the Opposite Party bank and he is having a Saving Bank Account No. 30926968794. The Complainant also provided with ATM Card Facility. On 04.06.2015 the Complainant used his ATM Card at the ATM Centre, Nallathambi Road at Pammal to withdraw a money of Rs.5,000/- to pay the school fees for his child. However, the Complainant received a statement showing that as if he had withdrawn money.  The transaction timing then was 17:34. The  Complainant immediately transacted with other ATM machine in the same premises at 17:36 hours  and withdrew a sum of Rs.5,000/-. After, such transaction the receipt shown the balance was Rs.88/-. The Opposite Party is having CCTV Camera in the ATM machine centre and they can very well check the same that the Complainant was not delivered money in the first transaction. The Complainant also informed the security person available in the ATM machine about the first transaction. Then the Complainant contacted the customer care and informed the transaction. He was informed by the Opposite Party that he can wait 7 full working days and the matter is being under investigation. On 14.06.2014 he received a call from the customer service centre that he should contact the Branch Manager. Then the Complainant contacted the Branch Manager on many occasions and however there was no response from him. The Complainant lost his hard earned money. Therefore the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.  Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to refund a sum of Rs.5,000/- to him and also compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with litigation charges.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This Opposite Party submits that the Complainant has not added the State Bank of India, Pammal Branch as party to the Complaint that where he withdrew money in their ATM. The usual procedure followed in all the banks when cash was not received from ATM Machine is that, during the end of the day when the ledger is closed after accounting the excess money which remains will automatically be credited to the account of the customer who did not receive money from the ATM. Hence if the customer had really not received any cash the ledger will show excess amount, which after enquiry will be credited to the customer’s account. The contention of the Complaint that the Opposite Party can check the CCTV Camera whether cash has been disbursed or not, is baseless as the Complainant has not withdrawn money in the ATM attached to the branch of the Opposite Party and it is only the Pammal Branch Manager who is likely to answer this contention, who has not been added as a party by this Complainant. On this ground alone this Complaint is to be dismissed.

          3. The contention of the Complainant is that, he contacted the Opposite Party Branch Manager regarding this and there was no response on their side is totally untenable as the Opposite Party Branch Manager cannot do anything on this unless and until he receives any communication from the concerned branch where the money was withdrawn. The Opposite Party Branch had contacted the Pammal branch manager who stated that there is no excess money shown in the Ledger and amount has been disbursed. At this stage the Opposite Party had no other option than to close the file. Hence the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted case of both the parties is that the Complainant is having Ex.A1 Savings Bank Account with the Opposite Party bank and he has been also provided with the ATM facility for the said account and on 04.06.2014 he went to the ATM centre at Nallathambi Road at Pammal and made two transactions and for such transactions the ATM customer advice generated was marked as Ex.A2.

          6. According to the Complainant the deficiency committed by the Opposite Party is that on 04.06.2014 the Complainant used his ATM Card to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,000/- and however he had not been delivered with the said amount, though the ATM customer advice generated at 17:34 hours shows the debit of Rs.5,000/- as if he had withdrawn the  said amount and immediately in an another ATM machine in the same premises at 17:36 hours he had used his ATM Card and withdrawn Rs.5,000/- and further as per Ex.A1 Statement of Account a sum of Rs.10,000/- was credited in his account on 03.06.2014 and showing the balance  of Rs.10,088/- and after the aforesaid two transactions the balance shown only Rs.88/- and since he had not been delivered with Rs.5,000/- for the first transaction the Opposite Party  had committed deficiency in service.

          7. As per Ex.A1 Statement of Account of the Complainant, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was credited on 03.06.2014 and showing a available balance of Rs.10,088/- in his account. However, the transaction statement in that particular ATM Branch  would be available only with the Pammal Branch. The Complainant contended that if the CCTV footage is seen, it would make clear that for the 1^st transaction he was not delivered with the amount of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, to prove such transaction to verify the CCTV footage and to prove the Complainant case, he should have taken steps to verify the CCTV footage. Further considering the facts of the case the SBI, Pammal Branch is the necessary party for this Complaint because, he is only controlling, the concerned ATM. The Opposite Party also taken a stand that the SBI Pammal branch was not added as a party is defect on the part of the Complainant. The Ex.A2 is the customer advice generated at 17:34 hours on 06.04.2014 clearly reveals the fact that the Complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Further Ex.B1 statement of the Complainant Saving Bank Account clearly shows that the Complainant had withdrawn Rs.5,000/- twice on 04.06.2014. The CCTV footage should be available only with the SBI Branch, Pammal in respect of the above said transactions. The SBI, Pammal branch is competent to speak about the CCTV footage transactions. Therefore, the Complainant has not added the SBI Branch, Pammal who is having the control over the aforesaid ATM and further the Complainant has failed to prove that he was not delivered with Rs.5,000/- on the first transaction establishes that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service to the Complaint and accordingly this point is answered.

 

 

08. POINT NO:2

Since the complainant has not proved any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of August 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 04.06.2014                            Bank Account Book

Ex.A2 dated 06.04.2014                            ATM Receipt

Ex.A3 dated 20.06.2014                            Notice by Complainant

Ex.A4 dated 02.12.2014                            Legal Notice

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 06.04.2014                             Copy of Ledger

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT