Complaint filed on: 12-03-2010<br /> Disposed on: 04-08-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.561/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 4th AUGUST 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> Mohammed Yousuff <br /> S/o. Mohammed Kasim Sab,<br /> Aged about 58 years,<br /> KSRTC Driver,<br /> Badge No.932, Depot No.IV,<br /> Majestic Bus Stand,<br /> Bangalore-09<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> <br /> 1. Branch Manager,<br /> State Bank of Mysore,<br /> Wilson garden branch, <br /> 10th cross, Hombe gowda<br /> Nagar, Bangalore-27 <br /> <br /> 2. Manager<br /> State Bank of India,<br /> Currency Administration cell,<br /> 2nd floor, CBI Road,<br /> Ganganagar,<br /> Bangalore-24 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties in brief is, that he is an employee of KSRTC was compelled to open an account with State Bank of Mysore, Wilson garden, Bangalore which has provided ATM facilities through State Bank of India, OP No.2 in KSRTC bus stand, Majestic Bangalore to enable them to withdraw their salary through ATM facilities. That on 12-5-2009 at 7 AM to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/-, he inserted ATM card but the money was not disbursed as ATM machine failed to operate, though he had a balance of Rs.60,820/- in his account. Then he waited and observed other customers in operating ATM machine who withdrew their money successfully. Then he in this regard filed a complaint in the outpost police station, KSRTC bus stand but they told him to file a complaint to the Ops. After three days, he went to the 1st OP to get entry to his pass book and surprised to saw withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- from his account as on 12-5-2009. Then he gave a complaint to the 1st OP and also he gave a complaint to the banking ombudsman on 21-7-2009. Then 1st OP sent a reply to him on 29-9-2009 after four months that his ATM operation was successful in withdrawing of Rs.40,000/-. Then the 1st OP advised him to approach the 2nd OP who had provided the ATM machine. The 2nd OP admitted mechanical and computer failure and told him that they have made good Rs.40,000/- and found the 2nd OP had made good Rs.40,000/- by re-crediting his money. Despite that the Ops again debited Rs.40,000-00 to his account and stated the manager of the 2nd OP told him that only Rs.15,000/- can be withdrawn through ATM card at a time and Rs.40,000/- could not be withdrawn. Thus further stating that the banking Ombudsman through its letter dated 18-2-2010 written to him that ATM operation was successfully done. The complainant alleging deficiency in the service of the OP in not re-crediting his amount though no successful operation was alone has prayed for a direction to the Ops to pay him Rs.40,000/- by making good the loss and also to award damages.<br /> <br /> 2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version. The 1st OP has admitted that, this complainant is one of their account holders and they have provided ATM facility to their account holders through ATM facilities of 2nd OP. This OP has also admitted that the complainant had operated ATM card on 12-5-2009 but denied that he tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- and have stated that the complainant has withdrawn Rs.40,000/- successfully and have sent documents in this regard to him. It is further stated by them as per the ATM documents subsequently two other customers had successfully withdrawn the money and denied any deficiency at their end and stated have advised the complainant to approach the 2nd OP who had provided ATM machine and when the banking Ombudsman found that operation was successful, the complainant can not maintain this complaint and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. 2nd OP in his version admitting to have provided ATM facility to the customers of the 1st OP but denied that the complainant was not successful in withdrawing the amount on 12-5-2009. This OP denying that ATM customer can only withdraw the amount not exceeding Rs.15,000/- at a time has stated the complainant could not withdraw more than RS.15,000/- at a time. It is further contended that the complainant on 12-5-2009 has withdrawn Rs.40,000/- successfully and the journal printer has proved successful transaction. That they have also maintained the money available in the ATM machine including denomination placed in the machine and withdrawals made by the card holders indicating the amount in balance as on 11-5-2009 and 12-5-2009 were tallied and stated that amount tallied. The complainant alone is having confidential pin code and not known to any one and stated that the money they have stored and disbursed fully tallied and this OP producing the journal printer logo raised by machine has by denying the allegations of the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith complaint has produced a copy of his pass book, copies of letters he had addressed to the Ops, copy of ATM machine journal and replies of OP No.1 and reply given by the banking ombudsman. 2nd OP has produced a copy of ATM machine journal and copies of documents containing details of the money fed to the ATM machine disbursement details and balance. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. Counsel for the 1st OP has filed written argument. <br /> <br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the ATM machine did not operate on 12-5-2009 when he tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- and Ops have caused deficiency in their service by debiting Rs.40,000/- to his account claiming that amount has been withdrawn by him?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the negative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Answer on Point No.1: The claim of the complainant that he is having account with the 1st OP. That 1st OP through 2nd OP has provided ATM facility at Majestic KSRTC Bus Stand to enable them to withdraw their salary through ATM card is not disputed by the Ops. But the Ops have denied the allegations of the complainant that on 12-5-2009 at 7 AM when he tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- through his ATM card operation was not successful but latter on when he got the pass book entry made after three days he found Rs.40,000/- was debited to his account which is all done by Ops is either mischievous act or mechanical defect in ATM machine. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant had maintained Rs.60,000/- and add in his account is not disputed by the Ops. On the basis of ATM machine journal produced by the complainant himself we could see that the complainant through his ATM card on12-5-2009 at 6.14 hours shown to have withdrawn Rs.40,000/-. Even as admitted by the complainant himself he noticed the subsequent to him two more customers operated ATM machine and were successful in withdrawing their money. It is further found in this journal even prior to the complainant on the same day at 6.10 AM, 6.12AM, 6.13AM three other customers have withdrawn the amount. The complainant shown to have withdrawn at 6.14 AM then again at 6.15AM, 6.18AM and 6.19AM three other customers have successfully operated and withdrawn the amount. Therefore it can not be said that when the complainant tried to withdraw the ATM machine was either defective computer system did not work. When the ATM machine has successfully operated prior to and after operation of the complainant transaction the question that there was defect in the operation of ATM machine has to be ruled out. <br /> <br /> 9. The complainant has stated as if he was told by the 1st OP that the amount exceeding Rs.15,000/- cannot be withdrawn in a single transaction. Whereas the 2nd OP has denied the allegation of the complainant and contended that the customer, if he has sufficient fund in his account can withdraw more amount also. The counsel for the 2nd OP has produced a circular of 2nd OP under which cash withdrawal has been increased from Rs.25,000/- to 40,000/- at a time with effect from 7-7-2008. Thus the contention of the complainant that he could not have withdrawal Rs.40,000/- in a single transaction cannot be accepted. This contention of the 2nd OP is not disputed by the complainant. The ATM machine journal indicating the withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- is sufficient to disprove the complainant allegation of the quantum of money that could be withdrawn at a time. <br /> <br /> 10. Even banking ombudsman to whom the complainant had given a complaint in this regard found to have enquired into and has informed the complainant that his withdrawal was successful and enclosed copies of the relevant documents to his information. 2nd OP has also produced a copy of ATM machine journal and extract indicating the amount in denomination that had been deposited in ATM machine on 11-5-2009 and 12-5-2009 with further details of the amount disbursed by the machine and the balance found in the ATM machine. These documents further prove that, there was no discrepancy or difference in the amount loaded, the amount disbursed and the amount left behind in the ATM machine. On considering all these material before us in their totality, we are of the view that, the complainant has failed to prove either the defect in ATM machine or any mischief played in wrongly debiting the amount to his account. The counsel appearing for the complainant, in the course of arguments submitted that the OP had at once stage had reversed debiting, but latter on have again re-reversed. We find no discrepancy in it, because whenever the bank receives a complaint of wrong debiting they until enquiry reverse the entry temporarily and on confirmation of withdrawal, they again reverse it, which an not be called an irregularity. Hence, we find no merits in the complaint of the complainant and by answering point no.1 in the negative, we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Both the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4th August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />