Date of Filing : 12.07.2011

  Date of Order : 10.04.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated 10^th APRIL 2012

PRESENT

Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL,   …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB.                        ……..     MEMBER

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB.                    ……..     MEMBER

CC No. 161 / 2011

Sri. Aboobacker Haji.S.C.

Hotel Hindustan, M.G. Road,

Chikkaballapur.                                                       ……. Complainant

(By Sri. L. Nagaraja, Adv.)       

V/s.

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Mysore,

Chikkaballapur Branch,

Chikkaballapur.

(By Sri. V. Sreedhara Murthy, Adv.)                       …… Opposite Party

ORDER

By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER

The Complainant has filed the Complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, seeking direction against the OP to pay Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 18% P.M. from 24.03.2010 and further to pay damages at Rs.5,000/- alleging:-

Complainant is having S.B. A/c. No. 64026827571 with OP Bank and ATM Card.  On 20.02.2010 there was sufficient balance of more than Rs.40,000/- in Complainant’s account.  On 20.02.2010 he tried to draw Rs.20,000/- from ATM, but was unable to receive the amount, but got the intimation at 11.17 AM as SIAC 40008201Card No. 504645 TXN No. 3665 etc.  Later at 11.31 AM again he made an attempt to draw the amount, he received the intimation as “there is no funds”.  He immediately made written complaint to OP on 20.02.2010 requesting to set-right the mistake to enable him to draw Rs.40,000/-.  OP has not complied with his demand, but given endorsement on 02.03.2010 as “transactions are successful”.  Later he came to know about misuse of Rs.40,000/- from his account.  OP on receiving the complaint assured the Complainant that it will be set-right.  Complainant waited upto 24.03.2010 and issued legal notice on 24.03.2010 calling upon the OP to pay the amount.  But, OP failed to comply his demand.  As the OP did not respond suitably, the Complainant filed this Complaint seeking necessary relief.

2.       On being served with notice, OP filed version admitting the Complainant’s Account, ATM Card, having sufficient funds in his account, but denied the allegation of misuse of Rs.40,000/- made in the Complaint. When the OP issued endorsement on 02.03.2010 as “transaction is successful”, the question of setting-right of the mistake does not arise.  On 20.02.2010 at about 11.19 AM Complainant has withdrawn Rs.20,000/- from ATM-2 and again at about 11.23 AM he withdrew Rs.20,000/- from ATM-2.  It is the duty of the Complainant to maintain secrecy of the ATM Pin and OP is no way responsible for withdrawals done using the Card and the PIN by the customer or anyone.  There is no deficiency of service.  Hence complaint be dismissed.  

3.       On perusal of the Complaint averments, version, affidavits and documents of both parties, the points that arise for our consideration are:

          (A)     Whether there is deficiency in service ?

          (B)     If so, to what relief/s the Complainant is entitled ?

4.       Our findings are:

          (A)     Affirmative

          (B)     As per detailed order for the following reasons

REASONS

5.       Point No. A – While providing ATM facility, the Bank must ensure that the facility is customer safe.  The ATM Centre should be either manned by Bank security staff or there must mandatorily be CCTV coverage to monitor the ATM machine.  It is not the OP’s defence that it was manned by Bank Security staff.  Then there ought tobe CCTV Camera to monitor withdrawals from the ATM Counter.  The OP Bank ought to have furnished CCTV footage pertaining to the date and time alleged by the Complainant to show that he had indeed withdrawn money from that machine or CCTV footage pertaining to the 2^nd machine to prove that the withdrawals made at that particular timings were indeed successful.  Only CCTV footage would be cohersive proof that successful transaction (withdrawals) were made by the Complainant himself.  OP ought to have furnished CCTV footage covering of both the admitted transactions and the disputed transactions on the said date and time.  Merely producing J.P. Log is not sufficient as there is room for doubt that the machines are defective or that the machines are tampered with by someone else.  The ATM facility ought to be foolproof system, which is not the case here. There is deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, we hold the point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1.       Complaint is allowed.

2.       OP shall pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of incident till the date of payment within 30 days from the date of this Order to the Complainant.

3.       OP shall also pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.

4.       OP is directed to send the amount to the Complainant as ordered at (2) & (3) above by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.

5.       Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.

6.       Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of April 2012)

T. NAGARAJA          K.G.SHANTALA           H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO

    Member                         Member                                       President

SSS