Date of Filing : 19.07.2010
Date of Order : 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 20th MARCH 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 131 / 2010
Mr. K.N. Naresh,
S/o. R. Narasimhaiah,
Major,
No. 82, II Main Road,
C. Byre Gowda Nagar,
Kolar – 563 101.
(By Sri. S.C. Venkatachalapathi, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
M.G. Road, Kolar Branch,
Kolar.
2. The Manager,
State Bank of India,
BEL Factory Campus Branch,
Jalahalli,
Bangalore – 560 013.
(By Sri. V. Sreedhara Murthy, Adv. for OP1)
(By Sri. S.R. Ganesh, Adv. for OP2) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
The Complainant has filed this Complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, against the Ops seeking direction against them to pay Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of loss to the date of realization and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and 18% interest towards mental agony, deficiency of service from the date of complaint till the date of realization and costs of the complaint and such other reliefs alleging.
That the Complainant is a resident of Kolar. He is employed in BEL factory, has S.B. Account No. 30319953620 with OP1. The Complainant also has ATM Debit Card No. 6220180096300313572 supplied by OP1 to draw the amount through ATM counter machine. On 11.02.2009 he approached ATM Counter at OP2 Branch and operated the ATM Machine in order to draw Rs.10,000/-. He did not get any money, but Rs.10,000/- was debited in his account. On 17.02.2009, OP1 Bank addressed a letter to OP2 to verify the sundry accounts and credit the amount to Complainant’s account, but OP2 did not do so, but showed a log print that the Complainant had drawn Rs.10,000/- and transaction was successful. Further, OP2 was very negligent in investigating the facts and not settling the amount of Rs.10,000/- violating the RBI Rules and therefore liable to pay interest on the said amount of Rs.10,000/-. The Complainant issued legal notice to OP2, but OP2 has not replied. The Complainant has aged parents and they suffered mentally due to non-payment of Rs.10,000/- by OP2.
2. On service of notices both the Ops have appeared through their Counsels. OP1 has not filed version or affidavit. OP2 filed version and affidavit denying the allegations of deficiency of service. OP2 admitted the fact of debit of Rs.10,000/- in Complainant’s account, but denied that the Complainant did not get Rs.10,000/- which he intended to draw. On 11.02.2009 at about 12.58 hours an amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn from 2nd ATM and Journal Print log was filed in respect of that transaction. There is no deficiency in service.
3. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the documents furnished by both the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are as under:
(A) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs ?
(B) Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief sought for? If so, what relief?
(C) What Order ?
4. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(A) Affirmative
(B) Affirmative
(D) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
Point Nos. A to C - The statement of Bank Account shows that the Complainant used to withdraw the amount using his ATM Debit Card. Likewise, on 11.02.2009, he went to OP2 ATM machine to withdraw the amount by using his debit card. He operated the ATM machine, but to his disappointment, he did not get the money of Rs.10,000/-, but got the debit slip. He approached OP1 who addressed a letter to OP2 Bank which did not yield any result. When Bank is providing ATM services to its customers, it is the duty of the Bank to ensure that the service is foolproof. In the present case, duty lies on the Bank to prove by CCTV footage to show the Complainant had in fact received the cash from the ATM Machine. But it has not been done. Merely providing the J.P. log and saying that the transaction was successful would not suffice. Just because there is no excess amount in the Sundry Account would not mean that the Complainant had indeed received the said cash of Rs.10,000/- from ATM machine. Similarly, if the transaction has been shown as successful, would not go to mean that the Complainant himself had actually received the amount and was lying in order to make unlawful gain. The burden is on the OP to show that the complainant / customer had made successful transaction on ATM Machine and had actually received the amount he sought for. CCTV footage alone can prove this fact. By not giving this footage, the OP has shown deficiency. CCTV footage would have shown light “ON” whether there was tampering with the ATM machine and in fact had received the cash of Rs.10,000/-. Complainant has also produced the article “Ghost debiting haunts several bank customer” published in the news paper which proves his contention as established. We hold Points ‘A’ & ‘B’ in the affirmative and we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP2 shall pay to the Complainant Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from 11.02.2009 within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. OP2 shall also pay Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant as costs of litigation.
4. Ops shall comply with the order as stated above within the time stated above and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 75 days.
5. Office is directed to return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
6. Send free copy of the order to the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20th day of March 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
