Date of filing:16-02-2013
Date of Disposal: 31-07-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A.,B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday, the 31st day of July, 2014
C.C.NO.108/2013
Between:
M.Ramanjaneyulu
S/o Late M.Hanumanthappa
Lakshmi Jayanth Medical Stores
C/o Srinivasa Multi Specialty Hospital,
D.No.28-271, Near Iron Bridge,
Subash Road,
Ananthapuramu. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Main Branch, Sai Nagar,
- The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Upstairs, Main Branch,
Sai Nagar,
Ananthapuramu. …. Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri E.Bala Krishna, Advocate for the complainant and Sri T.Viswanath, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC):- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.10,000/- and grant costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is a permanent resident of Ananthapuramu and an account-holder in the opposite parties Branch vide account No.10873518208 and he is also provided with ATM Card. On 22-08-2012 when the complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- at ATM Centre at about 8.20 P.M., to his surprise the amount was not dispensed by the ATM but only cash summary slip No.Txn.9664 was dispensed, which is contrary to the normal procedure. Then the complainant assuming that there may not be sufficient fund in the ATM Equipment or may be defunct and proceeded to the adjacent ATM to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- and noticed on the display “ Sorry unable to process “. Subsequently the complainant to ascertain proper reason for not-delivering the cash from ATM even after waiting for approximate time of 45 seconds and went away from ATM Centre at about 8.30 P.M. After that the complainant received a message to his mobile disclosing that thank you for using your SBI Debit Car lNo.622XXX7563 for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from ATM 510B000806005 at shopping area, Ananthapuramu with Txn.No.9664. Then the complainant was up-set with the said message and subsequently made a complaint to helpline No.180112211 and also received acknowledgement by way of reply SMS to his mobile that the complaint has been registered under No.AT8605990731 for the purpose of further enquiry.
3. Subsequently the complainant on 03-09-2012 has submitted representation to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ananthapuramu for verification and necessary action. After a lapse of one week the Bank Authorities revealed that the process of delivering of cash of Rs.10,000/- was successful, hence the subject matter was closed. Further advised to refer the issue to the ATM Officer, concern duly giving ATM log statement. Basing on the above the complainant has approached the ATM Officer and met ATM Engineer Sri Michel to identify the photographs of the persons in the camera equipped in ATM Centre. Later on 24-09-2012 the ATM Engineer tried to identify the photographs but could not identify due to lack of illumination and said that the photographs in the camera were blurred. In the above circumstances, as the complainant has lost his hard earned money and as there was no proper response from the opposite parties filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the alleged undispensed amount from his account and to award costs of the complaint.
4. Counter filed by the 1st opposite party stating that it is true that the complainant had tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from State Bank of India ATM at 8.20 hours on 22-08-0212 at Shopping Area, Ananthapuramu. Further the 1st opposite party submitted that the allegation of the complainant that he has not received the above said cash of Rs.10,000/- from the said ATM except Cash Summary Slip bearing No.TXN.9664 as totally false. Further the allegation that the complainant tried to withdraw the above said amount of Rs.10,000/- from the adjacent ATM and noticed on the display “ sorry unable to process “ and the said allegation is only invented for the purpose of filing the present complaint and to have wrongful gain from the opposite party with a malafied intention.
5. The opposite party further submitted that basing on the notice dt.16-11-2012 sent by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman with regard to the above said allegations, the Banking Ombudsman has made enquiry with regard to the said allegations ( i.e. after receiving necessary information) i.e. (1) E.J.Report with three previous and next transactions (2) Cash Tally Report with slips before TXN9664 (3) Cash Tally Report with slips after TXN9664 and (4) No excess cash certificate from this opposite party has given reply to the complainant through their letter dt.10-12-2012 by saying as the above said disputed transaction was a successful transaction and as such the complaint was closed under clause 13© of Banking Ombudsman, 2006. Hence in the above circumstances, the opposite party submitted that as seen from the orders dt.10-12-2012 of the Banking Ombudsman, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. Adoption memo filed by the 2nd opposite party adopting the counter of the 1st opposite party.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties
1 & 2 ?
2. To what relief?
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A4 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties, evidence on affidavit of the 1st opposite party has been filed and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
9. Heard on both sides
10. POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is a permanent resident of Ananthapuramu and having Savings Bank Account in the opposite party Branch and he is also provided with a Debit Card. The counsel for the complainant submitted that on 22-08-2012 when the complainant tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- at about 8.20 P.M. through ATM Center at Shopping Area, Ananthapuramu, the complainant received only cash summary slip No.TXN.9664 but no cash was dispensed by the ATM Card which is contrary to the normal procedure. Then the complainant assuming that there might be insufficient funds in the ATM Machine or may be defunct and moved to the adjacent ATM to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- and noticed on the adjacent ATM “ Sorry unable to process .” Further the counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant being a helpless man to ascertain proper reason for non-dispensing of the cash from the ATM even after waiting for approximate time of 45 seconds and went away from the ATM Centre. Later the complainant received a message to his mobile disclosing that thank you for using your SBI Debit Car No.622 XXX7563 for withdrawing Rs.10,000/- from ATM-510B000806005 at Shopping Area, Ananthapuramu vide TXN.9664. Shocked by the message the complainant made a complaint to the helpline No.180112211 and got acknowledgment by way of reply SMS as the complaint was registered vide bearing No.AT8605990731 for the purpose of further enquiry.
11. The counsel for the complainant submitted that on 03-09-2012 the complainant has submitted a representation to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ananthapuramu for verification and necessary action. For that after a lapse of one week, the Bank Authorities revealed that the process of dispensing of cash of Rs.10,000/- was successful and therefore subject matter was closed and further advised to refer the issue to ATM Officer concerned. Then the complainant approached the ATM Engineer Sri Michel to identify the photographs of the persons through CC Camera. On 24-09-2012 the ATM Engineer tried to identify the photographs but could not identify as the photographs were blurred due to lack of illumination. The counsel for the complainant argued that it is the duty of the opposite parties to provide good services as the opposite parties are charging for using ATM and it is up-to the opposite parties to prove that ATM Machine has dispensed the said sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and further argued that it is the duty of the opposite parties to see that C.C.Cameras arranged in the ATM Centers work well and if any discrepancy arises, it is the duty of the opposite parties to satisfy the complainants. Further argued that as the opposite parties failed to satisfy the complainant and thereby caused deficiency of service, hence the opposite parties are liable to credit a sum of Rs.10,000/- which was not actually dispensed to the complainant and also to compensate for deficiency of service.
12. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that it is true that the complainant proceeded to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- from State Bank of India ATM at 8.20 P.M. on 22-08-2012 at shopping area, Ananthapuramu. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the allegation made by the complainant that he has not received the said amount of Rs.10,000/- from the said ATM and the complainant only received a cash summary slip No.TXN.9664 as totally false and it is also not true that the complainant has again tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the adjacent ATM and noticed on the display that sorry unable to process and the said allegation is only invented for the purpose of filing this complaint and to have unlawful gain from the opposite parties. Further the counsel for the opposite party submitted that basing on the notice dt.16-11-2012 sent by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman with regard to the above said allegation, Banking Ombudsman after making enquiry with regard to the said allegation after verifying and basing on the information (1) E.J.Report with three previous and next transactions (2) Cash Tally Report with slips before TXN9664 (3) Cash Tally Report with slips after TXN9664 and (4) No excess cash certificate from this opposite party has given reply to the complainant through their letter dt.10-12-2012 saying that the above said disputed transaction was a successful transaction. Hence the complaint of the complainant was closed under clause 13(c) of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.
13. Further the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that as the Banking Ombudsman has concluded as the transaction of the complainant was a successful transaction, there is no deficiency of service by the opposite parties at any stage. Further the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant has not filed the transaction summary slip pertaining to the particular transaction, which shows that the complainant with a malafied intention filed this complaint for unlawful gain. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the opposite party is a reputed public institution.
14. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents the arguments of the complainant is that when the complainant tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- at 8.20 P.M. on 22-08-2012 through the ATM machine and the said ATM Machine did not dispense a sum of Rs.10,000/-, but a cash summary slip No.Txn.9664 was dispensed by the said machine but the complainant has not filed the said cash summary slip Txn.9664 to prove his case who filed the other documents i.e. Ex.A1 Xerox copy of generally used abbreviations and Ex.A2 is representation by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman and Ex.A3 is order of the Ombudsman dt.10-12-2012 alongwith (1) E.J.Report with three previous and next transactions (2) Cash Tally Report with slips before TXN9664 (3) Cash Tally Report with slips after TXN9664 and (4) No excess cash certificate from the opposite party. In the above Ex.A3 E.J.Report clearly shows that there was a withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant’s account at 8.20 AP.M. on 22-08-2012 and the said transaction slip is dispensed by the ATM Machine as per the arguments of the complainant but no amount was dispensed with as per the complainant’s arguments. But the complainant has not filed the said summary transaction slip to prove that no amount was dispensed from the said machine. The said E.J. Report is nothing but the account extract, which is kept in memory of the ATM Machine. Further the cash tally report before Txn.9664 and the cash tally report after Txn.9664 also tallied with that of the Bank accounts. The above said two documents clearly establish that the alleged amount of Rs.10,000/- was dispensed by the ATM Machine on 22-08-2012.
15. Further the argument of the complainant that the opposite party has failed to prove that the ATM Machine has dispensed a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on 22-08-2012 by way of photographs though there is a CC Camera in the said ATM Center cannot be considered. Further the argument that ATM Engineer has said that the photographs were blurred due to lack of illumination and the argument of the complainant is that it is the duty of the opposite parties to provide fool-proof services to the customers and when there is a discrepancy it is up-to the opposite parties to prove that the ATM has dispensed the amount of Rs.10,000/- also cannot be considered. In the above circumstances, the arguments of the complainant that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties cannot be considered as due to some technical problem there might not have been the clear photographs of the particular transaction to prove that the amount was dispensed to the complainant, that does not mean that ATM has not dispensed the amount to the complainant and E.J. Report clearly shows that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was dispensed and summary transaction slip was also dispensed after debiting a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the account of the complainant. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have not caused any deficiency of service to the complainant and also not liable to pay or credit a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant’s account as prayed for.
16. POINT NO.2 – In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 31st July, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Photo copy of generally used abbreviations of State Bank of India.
Ex.A2 – Representation of the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad
Dt.16-11-2012.
Ex.A3 - Order of the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad dt.10-12-2012 sent to the
Complainant.
Ex.A4 - Photo copy of State Bank of India ATM-cum-Debit Card.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
