BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.1526/2012

DATED THIS THE 8^th JULY 2013

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -             

                                                VB Ravi Prakash

                                                S/o. Late Sri V Bhaskaran Pillai,

                                                J-3/1, Phase-I,

                                                DRDO Township,

                                                CV Raman Nagar (PO),

                                                Bangalore-93       

V/s

Opposite parties: -                 

1.     The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Mavelikara Branch,

Alappuzha District,

Mavelikara-01

Kerala-690 101

2.     Canara Bank,

Shivajinagar branch,

Bangalore -560 001

Reptd by its General Manager

ORDER

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs no.1 and 2, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.80,000=00.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

The complainant is serving in the Indian Army and presently posted to ADE, DRDO, Bangalore and he is operating SB account in SBI Mavelikara, Kerala with account no.10282816760 which is also his salary account. On 25^th of January 2012, the complainant went into Canara Bank ATM at Shivajinagar which was nearby and attempted to withdraw cash, and two of his attempts were not successful and so he went to SBI ATM and withdrew an amount of Rs.15,000=00 to meet his requirement. During travel to the next ATM, the complainant received SMS stating that an amount of Rs.9,000=00 is credited to his account. On 3-2-2012, he has taken a print out of his account and he was surprised to see that the amount of Rs.10,000=00 which was not dispensed to him at Canara Bank ATM is ducted from his account, and he approached the Canara Bank at Shivajinagar and he was shocked to hear from the Manager saying why SBI customer has come to Canara Bank, and she did not even show the courtesy to listen to problem of the complainant. The Assistant Manager of the Canara Bank told that, the ATM is outsourced and if they have excess amount he will get back the amount, and then he approached the Manager of SBI, Mavelikara over phone, he asked the complainant to send a complaint by email, the complainant did so. Based on the complaint of complainant, the branch approached the authorities of Canara Bank who later replied that the transaction was successful and are trying to close the chapter. On 17-2-2012, the complainant took leave to resolve the issue and personally approached the Manager, SBI Mavelikara who promised to send one more letter to Canara bank, on the same day, the manager of SBI, Mavelikara has given a copy of the letter furnished by the Canara Bank to SBI Mavelikara, and then the complainant approached (a) Shri.F.R.Joseph C/o. Reserve Bank of India, Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapura-33, (b) Shri.M.Palanisamy C/o Reserve Bank of India, 10/3/8, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore (c) The Chief General Manager, SBI Local head office, St. Marks road, Bangalore, (d) The Chief General Manager, Canara Bank head office, 112, JC Road, Bangalore and (e) The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mavelikara, Alappuzha, Kerala.   The Banking Ombudsman at Trivandrum was in constant contact with the complainant and was trying to resolve the issue, the complainant made many visits to the Bank at Mavelikara and Head Office of SBI at Bangalore for a resolution and the complainant also visited the office of the Banking Ombudsman at Trivandrum, Kerala twice. Once in the year 2009, he lost an amount of Rs.3500=00, when he was doing a transaction at Kolkotta (AXIS Bank), the case was brought to the bank authorities and the same amount was refunded to the complainant after almost a month, now the complainant has complained to the bank at Mavelikara regarding the loss of Rs.10,000=00, the manager is linking the old case with this. The money under dispute is an amount of Rs.10,000=00 a part amount from Rs.75000=00 withdrawn by the complainant out of his provident fund account as a loan to clear some petty debts, he has incurred after his daughters marriage, the physical materialization of withdrawal may please be verified from the CCTV recordings of the ATM. The Branch manager at Mavelikara is having a totally indifferent approach all through and taking out some grudge against the complainant, it is understood from the office of the banking ombudsman at Trivandrum that the branch manager gave an adverse report to the banking Ombudsman at Trivandrum about the complainant. The branch manager was always trying to close the issue at the earliest instead of helping the complainant in getting the money back displaying totally a negative attitude. Now the banking ombudsman gave him a final reply saying that the case is disposed vide their letter no.OBO (t) No.318/18103/2012-13 dated 11-7-2012 and advised the complainant to approach any other forum for redressal. The complainant has not received the money from the Canara Bank ATM for which the debit is shown in his account, the complainant ready to undergo any trial or test by any agency as deemed fit by this forum. The loss of Rs.10,000=00 has given the complainant so much of mental agony and set him back financially because of not clearing his debit to other agencies in time and making so many visits to baking authorities to get his hard earned money back, so the present complaint is filed, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.80,000=00 as financial relief.

3. After service of the notice, the OPs no.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed version separately.

4. The averments of version of OP no.1 can be stated as under:

The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, and it is liable to be dismissed in limine.  This OP is not aware of correspondence took place with the Canara Bank branch at Shivajinagar, Bangalore. It is true that, the manager of SBI, Mavelikara branch has asked to lodge the complaint and based on the reply given by Canara Bank with regard to successful transaction it was informed to the complainant. This OP is not aware of averments made in para no.6 to 8 of the complaint; the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Transaction related to 2009 is not connected to the present complaint. This OP is not aware of the source of money and based on the reports of OP no.2 transaction is successful therefore question of verification from CCTV does not arise. The complainant has made a baseless allegation against the branch manager and same is not true and whatever reports available have been produced to the banking ombudsman’s office and based on the reports the banking ombudsman’s office has closed the case. As the transaction alleged has been successfully done and cash has been dispensed by the Canara Bank ATM, so there is no deficiency in service, so making payment to the complainant does not arise. This OP furnishes reports generated from the ATM in confirmation with receipt of payment and transaction showing successful. The bank has tried and made all efforts in ascertaining correct and clear position with regard to successful transaction of the complainant and the bank has also approached and contacted the ATM dealing official. The Canara Bank informed that they are not holding any excess cash in that particular ATM hence debit to the account of the complainant is in order and same cannot be disputed by the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission by its order dated 7-4-2011 in Revision Petition no.3182/2008 in case between SBI v/s K.K.Balla has upheld contention of the bank, so this OP prayed to dismiss the complaint of complainant with cost. This OP is not liable to pay any amount as prayed in the complaint; hence he prayed to dismiss the compliant with exemplary cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

5. The averments of version of OP no.2 can be stated as under:    

The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts, and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The averments of the complaint made in para no.1 to 11 are untenable and this OP denies the averments of the complaint, and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The averment of the complaint made in para no.13 that the complainant has not received the money from the Canara Bank ATM for which the debit is shown in his account is false and it is hereby denied. The further averment of the complaint the loss of Rs.10,000=00 has given the complainant so much of metal agony and set him back financially because of not clearing his debit to other agencies in time and making so many visits to baking authorities to get his hard earned money back are all untenable. The complainant is not entitled to claim of Rs.80,000=00. The complainant is the ATM card holder of OP no.1 and he has used his ATM card with Canara Bank ATM machine at Shivajinagar. The OP no.2 has produced the details of the transactions showing the ATM cards used in the Shivajinagar ATM of Canara Bank and the amounts dispensed to the card holders including the transaction in question. The electronic journal print transaction showing record nos.2187 t0 2194 confirming the successful transaction of the complainant under record no.2190 for a sum of Rs.10,000=00. The Manager, ATM cell branch, Canara Bank, Bangalore has given no excess certificate in favour of the OP no.2 stating that they have not found any excess cash on 25-1-2012, showing there is no excess amount available with the ATM. The complainant has made a complaint to the OP no.1 who is in turn forwarded the same to this OP and the OP no.2 had made enquiry and submitted reported and the complainant has also made a complaint to the Banking ombudsmen against the OPs and the banking ombudsmen closed the case. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the complainant is not entitled to the amount of Rs.10,000=00 and also compensation of Rs.80,000=00 alongwith cost of the litigation. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP, so the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

6. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OPs, the following points arise for our consideration.

1.                           Whether the complainant proves that, an amount of Rs.10,000=00 was not dispensed to him at Canara Bank ATM and it is deducted from his account due to negligence of OPs and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2.                           If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

3.                           What order?

7. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the Negative

Point no.2:  In view of the negative findings on the

point no.1, the complainant is not entitled 

to any relief as prayed in the complaint

          Point no.3:  For the following order

REASONS

          7. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced documents which are marked as Ex-1 to 9. On the other hand, one K.A.Cherian, Branch Manager working in OP no.1 office has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and one E.R.Mallareddy, Senior Manager working in OP no.2 office has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced four documents with list. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides in between line.

8. One V.B.Ravi Prakash, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, he is serving in the Indian Army and posted to ADE, DRDO, Bangalore and he is a law abiding citizen. He is holder of SB account No.10282816760 in SBM, Mavelikara, Kerala, which is also his salary account and utilizing the same uninterruptedly. On 25^th of January 2012, he was in need of money and he walked into Canara Bank ATM at Shivajinagar which was nearby and attempted to withdraw cash twice, but both attempts were not successful and the first time when he entered amount of Rs.18,000=00 surprisingly received transaction receipts as declined enter lesser amount and thereafter he entered amount of Rs.10,000=00 and at that juncture though no amount was dispensed, he received transaction receipt to the effect that amount of Rs.10,000=00 as withdrawal and actual available balance is Rs.8,736=00. Since he did not receive any amount, he was under the impression that, no amount will be deducted from his account which he has maintained with state bank of India. After failing in two attempts, he was constrained to travel 4 kilometers to SBI ATM to withdrew an amount of Rs.15,000=00 to meet his requirement and he received SMS stating that an amount of Rs.9,000=00 is credited into his account, but at no point of time had received any SMS stating to have deducted a sum of Rs.10,000=00 as withdrawn, he took entries of his SB account in the passbook and was surprised to see that the amount of Rs.10,000=00 which was not dispensed to him at Canara Bank ATM was deducted from his account. Immediately after coming to know about the fact of deduction, he approached the Canara Bank but was surprise to hear from the manager saying why SBI customer has come to Canara Bank, and manager of that bank did not even show the courtesy to listen to his problem, but the Assistant Manager who was sitting in the adjacent chamber told that, the ATM is outsourced and if they have excess amount there the same will be remitted back to his account and also gave an application to the complainant to get back the amount with an advise to fill up and submit the same to SBI bank, and he sent the complaint and based on his complaint it was made known to him that the branch approached the authorities at Canara Bank who later replied that since the transaction was successful and that chapter has been closed on 17-2-2012 and he took leave and approached the manager of SBI, Mavelikara who promised to send one more letter to Canara Bank and copy of letter was handed over to him, then he personally approached the Regional Head Quarters of SBI and officials advised him to approach the RBI and banking Ombudsman man, accordingly he has written a complaint to RBI, Chief General Manager of SBI, and also Canara Bank and also Banking Ombudsman at Trivandrum and the manager of State Bank of India, Mavelikara had linked up the old case contending that once in the year 2009 , he lost an amount of Rs.3500=00 when he was doing a transaction at Kolkotta and that case was brought to the bank authorities and that amount was refunded to him. The amount of Rs.10,000=00 is part of amount from Rs.75,000=00 withdrawn by him out of his provident fund and though the facts revealed that the amount of Rs.10000=00 is not at all dispensed from Canara Bank ATM for no fault of him, the said amount has been deducted from his account by virtue of which he has suffered great humiliation, harassment, mental agony, hardship and commensurate loss. He is a customer of SBI and the branch manager at Mavelikara is bound to redress his grievance and it has come to his knowledge that the branch Manager of SBI has given an adverse report to the banking ombudsman about him and he had also demanded for physical materialization of withdrawal be verified from the CCTV recordings of the ATM but to his utter shock and dismay it was informed that on 25-1-2012 the CCTV was not working. The Banking ombudsman has replied to him that he is at liberty to approach any other forum for redressal and he has undergone great mental trauma, hardship, monetary loss which cannot be accounted to any extent without prejudice to the same, the same has been assessed at Rs.80,000=00. As per the withdrawal transaction slip, it is clear that, withdrawal was RS.10,000=00 and available balance is Rs.8,736=00 and when a sum of Rs.9,000=00 is debited to his account, the balance should be Rs.17,736=00, but the pass book reads otherwise, which clearly shows that there is discrepancy in maintaining the account and there is deficiency of service, so the present complaint is filed, so he prayed to allow the complaint and grant relief as prayed in the complaint.

9. Ex.1 is the copy of pass book of complainant, wherein it is stated that, in the month of January 2012 an amount of Rs.10,000=00 was withdrawn by using ATM no.2190 of Canara Bank. In the said document two ATM card slip of Canara Bank dated 25-1-2012 are find and one slip is for Rs.18,000=00 and that transaction has been declined and another ATM slip dated 25-1-2012 of Canara Bank revealed an amount of Rs.10,000=00 has been withdrawn by using ATM Card. Ex-2 is the copy of complaint addressed to SBI, Branch Manager, Mavelikara, Kerala stating that on 25-1-2012 as he was in need of money, so he went to Canara Bank ATM at Shivajinagar and tried to withdraw twice and not able to get money and went away and tried in some other SBI ATM and withdrew money. After few days when he checked the balance in his account, Rs.10,000=00 was deducted from his account, so he requested to verify the same and credit the amount to his account. Ex-3 is a copy of letter produced by the Canara Bank to SBI, Mavelikara, Kerala stating that representation has been received by them from the acquiring bank on 15-2-2012 for the captioned transaction, so they will not be able to give credit to the customer, JP log copy attached and JP log copy produced alongwith Ex-3 shows that an amount of Rs.10,000=00 has been withdrawn on 25-1-2012 and that transaction has been successful. Ex-4 is the copy of complaint of the complainant addressed to RBI, Thiruvananthapuram and Bangalore, the Chief General Manager of SBI, Bangalore and the Chief General Manager of Canara Bank, Bangalore and the Branch Manager, SBI of Mavelikara, Kerala stating that, on 25-1-2012 he was to withdraw some money, so he went to Canara Bank ATM at Shivajinagar and attempted to withdraw money and two of his transactions were not successful and then he went to SBI ATM and withdrew an amount of Rs.15,000=00. On 3-2-2012 he has taken a printout of his account and he was surprised to see that amount of Rs.10,000=00 which was not dispensed to him at Canara Bank ATM has been deducted from his account and he sent a complaint through email and they have replied that the transaction was successful and are trying to close the chapter, so he requested to look into the matter and ensure justice to him. Ex-5 is the letter of complainant addressed to the Manager, SBI, Mavelikara branch, Kerala dated 15-4-2009 stating that he is operating the SB account at SBI, Mavelikara, Kerala and he had been on a pilgrimate to three attempts to Sridham Mayapur from 2-4-2009 to 10 10-4-2009, at that time, he tried to withdraw some money from his account with ATM card at Axis Bank, various trails turned to be fruitless, on coming back to Bangalore, he checked his account and it is revealed that, an amount of Rs.3500=00 is deducted from his account which he did not withdraw. He requested to do the needful action for crediting the amount in his above account. Ex-6 is the copy of letter of Banking Ombudsman dated 11-7-2012 addressed to the complainant stating that, no complaint shall lie to the banking ombudsman and there is no discretion available to the banking ombudsman to reopen the case which is already closed, he is at liberty to approach any other forum for redressal. Ex-7 is the copy of the letter of Banking Ombudsman addressed to the complainant stating that they have taken up the matter with the bank for settlement of the complaint and to advise the complainant the developments in due course and if any assistance is required be may contact them. Ex-8 is the copy of complaint of the complainant to Banking Ombudsman by email praying to look into the matter and dispute amount is of Rs.10,000=00 and ensure justice to him. Ex-9 is the copy of reminder letter issued by the complainant stating that, he is not in receipt of any communication from SBI Mavelikara, Kerala so he requested to look into the matter and resolve the issue at an early date. Ex-10 is the copy of letter of the complainant addressed to Banking Ombudsman stating that it is a matter of great concern to him that the issue is delayed and requested to look into the matter and resolve the issue at an earliest. Ex-11 is the copy of letter of Banking ombudsman dated 23-5-2012 addressed to the complainant stating that, SBI has furnished reports generated from the ATM and confirmed that the disputed transaction for Rs.10,000=00 undertaken by the complainant at the ATM of Canara Bank, Shivajinagar on 25-1-2012 was successful, and the proceedings before the banking ombudsman are not found appropriate for adjudication of the same, so he regret to intervene in the matter and the complaint is treated as closed and liberty to give the complainant to approach any other forum for redressal. Ex-12 is the copy of letter of complainant praying to give an appointment to meet the banking ombudsman in person either on the 30^th or 31^st of July 2012 and requested not to close the file till such time.

10. At this stage, it is relevant to have a cursory glance at the material evidence of the OP. One K.A.Cherian, Branch Manager of OP no.1 has stated in his affidavit that, it is the complaint that, ATM has not dispensed money, based on the complaint the branch has written a letter to OP no.2, and OP no.2 furnished ATM transaction details which revealed that, the Canara Bank ATM has dispensed the money, for having dispensed the money, Canara bank has sent transaction log copy to OP no.1 and that document shows that, the cash has been withdrawn by the complainant, so the complaint with regard to non receipt of payment at the ATM is not correct. The complainant himself has admitted the prompt approach of OP no.1 in attending to his complaint, so has no cause of action against OP no.1. The complainant is in possession of the ATM card and is privy exclusively to the PIN with which transaction can be carried out alongwith the card. Without the card and the pin money could not have been withdrawn from the ATM. Canara bank informed that the transaction is successful and no excess cash was found in the ATM at the material time, there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OP no.1, so the complaint be dismissed.

11. One E.R.Mallareddy, Senior Manager of Canara Bank has stated in his affidavit that, the complainant went to Canara Bank Shivajinagar ATM at about 12.52 pm used his card for withdrawal of Rs.18,000=00 under record no.2189 and it was declined and the ATM machine advised the complainant to enter lesser amount and immediately he tried for Rs.10,000=00 under record no.2190 and that transaction was successful and the amount was dispensed to the card holder. The receipt of the ATM machine shows the balance of Rs.9736=00, there is no excess amount available with the ATM and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP no-2, so the complaint be dismissed with cost.

12. The OP has produced the transaction report dated 25-1-2012 of Canara Bank ATM, Shivajinagar and that report shows that, on 25-1-2012 an amount of Rs.10,000=00 was withdrawn by using ATM card. Document no.2 of the OP no.1 is the journal print of the transaction dated 25-1-2012 and that document shows that the transaction of Rs.10,000=00 was successfully as the said amount has been taken by the complainant by using his credit card 6220180864500126015-000, and record number was 2190, and available balance is Rs.8736=00. Document no.3 is no excess cash certificate dated 9-10-2012 stating that, there was no excess cash as on 25-1-2012. Document no.4 is ATM Cash stock movement as on 25-1-2012 and 27-1-2012.

13. The said testimonies of the employees of the OP no.1 and 2 that, the transaction dated 25-1-2012 done by the complainant by using his credit card was successfully and an amount of Rs.10,000=00 has been dispensed with are fortified by the transaction report, journal print transaction dated 25-1-2012 and no excess cash certificate. On the other hand, the evidence of the complainant that, on 25-1-2012 an amount of Rs.10,000=00 was not dispensed to him as it was unsuccessful transaction is not corroborated by any believable documentary evidence. So making careful scrutiny of evidence of both parties, it is made unambiguously clear that, the oral and documentary evidence of OPs no.1 and 2 are more believable trustworthy and acted upon than the material evidence of complainant. The oral and documentary evidence of OPs go to demonstrate that, the transaction of Rs.10,000=00 done by the complainant on 25-1-2012 with his ATM card at Shivajinagar ATM was successful transaction and money has been dispensed. So under the circumstance, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant who comes to forum seeking relief has utterly failed to prove with acceptable material evidence that, the amount of Rs.10,000=00 was not dispensed to him at Canara Bank ATM and it is deducted from his account due to negligence of OP and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The material evidence placed by the complainant in relation to negligence of OPs for deducting of Rs.10,000=00 from his account, despite the said transaction was unsuccessful on 25-1-2012 is lacking in its credibility, and accordingly, we answer this point in a negative.

          14. In view of our negative finding on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

          The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. No cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.  

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 8^th day of July 2013).

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT