BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 67/2012.
THIS THE 25th DAY OF JULY 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Miss. Syeda Sabiya Jalal D/o. Syed
Jalaluddin, 26 years, R/o. H.No. 2-2-45/B-13, Darus-Salam area,behind Rasool Complex infort, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India,
P.B. No. 32, Prasanna Nivas, Brestwarpet, Raichur.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 1st floor HKCCI, Building, Super Market, Gulbarga- 585 101.
Date of institution :- 01-09-2012.
Date of disposal :- 25-07-2013.
Complainant represented by Sri. Gangadhar Patil, Advocate
Respondent No-1 represented by Sri. M.S. Baig, Advocate
Respondent No-2 represented by Sri. Basavaraj Sakri, Advocate.
This case coming for final disposal the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondents U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is the customer of Respondent No-1 having Savings Bank Account with ATM Card Facility. The Respondent No-1 had unlawfully deducted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards ATM transaction said to have been carried out by the complainant on 05-09-2011 at around 13:00 to 13:30 hours at ATM of Respondent No-2. Before going to withdraw the amount she had enquired about the balance which showed the balance as Rs. 53,745.98/-Ps. Then she went to withdraw Rs. 15,000/- from the ATM at which time she was informed that, the credit limits is only Rs. 10,000/- and accordingly she entered Rs. 10,000/- to draw the said amount from the ATM. But the amount was not disbursed and the receipt that came out showed transaction successful though the complainant has not received the amount sought for. As the complainant was in need of money for paying education fees, she once again tried to withdraw the money from 2nd Respondent’s ATM and entered Rs. 10,000/- for withdrawal and the said transaction was successful and once again she entered to withdraw Rs. 5000/- which also was successful. However, on observing the receipts complainant came to know that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deducted in her account at 13:35 to 14:45 hours. Therefore, she lodged a complaint with Respondents. On 15-09-2011 the amount of Rs. 10000/- was credited to the complainant’s account and later on 10-10-2011 the same amount was debited to the complainant’s account without any notice which she came to know when she withdrew the amount on 11-10-2011 and immediately she rushed to Respondent No-1 and lodged the complaint in writing on 12-10-2011. The Respondent No-2 is having two ATMs at Sedam Road, Gulbarga and the complainant had transaction with both of them. The complainant visited the Respondent No-2 to get JP Log sheet on 29-10-2011. Even after getting the JP Log sheet the complainant was not satisfied with the information provided to her and she has requested to Respondent No-2 to look into the matter and rectify the problem and provide her detailed information with WEB CAM FOOTAGE and she also gave on 03-11-2011 along with the copies of JP Log sheet with letter sent by Respondent No-2 to Respondent No-1. But till today there is no response from Respondent Nos-1 & 2. The Respondents caused the financial loss to the complainant by illegally debiting the amount in her account and thereby committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint seeking reliefs.
3. Respondent No-1 filed the written version stating that, the contents of Para-2 regarding the complainant’s account number and ATM Card number are admitted. The contents of Para No. 3 & 4 of the complaint regarding unlawful deduction of Rs. 10,000/- in the pass book of the complainant’s account is specifically denied. The true facts are that, the complainant had successfully done two transactions (1) SIOA003304059 and (2) SIOB003304060 as stated in Para-3 of the complaint and the customer transaction sheet clearly shows the successful two transactions. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No-1. The contents of Para No. 10 to 12 of the complaint regarding situation of ATM machines and jurisdiction as well as the cause of action, no reply is needed. The complainant has operated the ATM machine properly and got the amount and accordingly the transactions are shown in the complainant’s account, as such there is no deficiency in service and therefore paying damages does not arise and the complaint is not maintainable in law. Therefore the complaint be dismissed in the interest of justice and equity.
4. The Respondent No-2 filed written version stating that, the contents of Para-3 of the complaint that the Respondent No-1 bank had unlawfully made deduction of Rs. 10,000/- etc., are denied as false. There is no scope and chance to any banker to make such an unlawful deduction out of customer’s account. The complainant has successfully operated the ATM with regard to alleged two transactions and has taken the money at that relevant time and therefore there is absolutely no scope for unsuccessful operation in the ATM when it is operated without there releasing the amount. Therefore, the allegations made by the complainant in this context are false and baseless and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. As per the records of the Respondent No-2 both the transactions are successful and the amount has been dispensed on both occasions as shown in JP Log sheet of transaction No. 3745 and response code in both the transactions is shown as ‘000’ which indicates that the cash has been dispensed to the customers as per the report received from the Bank’s ATM Switch Center. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The contents of Para No. 5 to 10 are denied as false. The allegations in the complaint which are not specifically admitted are deemed to have been false and baseless. Hence the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost, in the ends of justice.
5. Complainant to prove her case filed her affidavit evidence which is marked as PW-1 and relied on nine documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. The Respondents to prove their case filed their affidavit evidence which is marked as RW-1 & RW-2 and relied on ten documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10.
5. Arguments heard on both sides. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents’ against her.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
6. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In Negative
(2) In Negative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
7. It is the case of the complainant that she being the account holder of Respondent No-1 bank having obtained ATM Card, on 05-09-2011 at around 13:00 to 13:30 hours from the ATM of Respondent No-1 made transactions under ID No. (1) SIOA003304059 and (2) SIOB003304060 for withdrawl of Rs. 15,000/- and at that time she got information that the credit limit was only Rs. 10,000/-, therefore she did not get the amount, therefore she once again operated the ATM to get Rs. 10,000/-, but the said amount was Rs. 10,000/- was not dispensed with by the ATM and she received receipt only which showed that the transaction was successful, however she did not get the said amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The further case of the complainant is that, as she was in need of money she tried to withdraw money at 2nd ATM in the same premises and received Rs. 10,000/- and further she once again operated the ATM for Rs. 5,000/- and got it. The receipts she received showed Rs. 10,000/- has been debited to her account, regarding which she lodged complaint with Respondents upon which on 15-09-2011 Rs. 10,000/- was credited to her account and later on 10-10-2011 the same amount was debited without any notice to her. So the grievance of the complainant is that, though the ATM machine did not dispense with Rs. 10,000/- at the first instance when she operated the ATM for the said amount the ATM machine dispensed the receipt only showing the said transaction successful and accordingly the Respondent No-1 bank debited to her account with Rs. 10,000/-, though she did not get the said amount. However the complainant has not produced any evidence which shows that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was not dispensed with by the ATM machine when she operated it for withdrawing Rs. 10,000/-. On the other hand Ex.P-2 which is the copy of Account Statement of the complainant maintained with the Respondent No-1 produced by the complainant herself shows that, on 05-09-2011 the amount of Rs. 10,000/- twice and Rs. 5,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant through ATM. The alleged Log Sheet Ex.P-4 also does not disclose that Rs. 10,000/- was not dispensed with by the ATM to the complainant on 05-09-2011. The report from ATM Switch Center which is marked as Ex.P-7 shows that, the complainant had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- two times and Rs. 5,000/- once from ATM on 05-09-2011. The said ATM Switch Center report is computer generated one which is globally accepted and cannot be tampered manually by any one. Therefore the said document is worth relying. Therefore the contention of the complainant that, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was not dispensed with to her by ATM and the Respondent No-1 bank wrongly debited Rs. 10,000/- to her account and therefore she is entitled for compensation towards deficiency in service has to be rejected. Therefore deficiency in service cannot be attributed against the Respondents. Therefore this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
8. As the complainant has failed to prove her case and deficiency in service on the part of Respondents she is not entitled for any reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
9. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on 25-07-2013 )
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
