BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
M.V.R. SHARMA, B.A. MEMBER
Thursday, 16th April 2015
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 62/ 2014
Manneru Raja Sekhar, S/o M. Adinarayana,
Retd. Govt. Doctor, Hindu, aged about 65 years,
Flat No. 40103, Indu Fortune Fields, 13th Phase,
K.P.H.B. Colony, Hyderabad. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Near NTR Circle,
Police Line, Kadapa City. ….. Respondent.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 6-4-2015 in the presence of Sri G.M.B. Murali Krishna, Advocate for complainant and Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Respondents to pay Rs. 20,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a. from 18-7-2013 i.e. date of failure ATM transaction till realization and to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 100/- per day and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant is having Account bearing No. 9795887062 in Indian Bank, KPHB Branch at Hyderabad and he came down to Kadapa on 18-7-2013 and operated his ATM card at ATM machine situated near NTR Circle branch at 8.30 a.m and tried to withdraw an amount of Rs. 20,000/- with transaction sequence No. 527. The transaction was completed but amount was not disbursed by the machine. He received SMS to his cell phone that the transaction was successful. Immediately complainant rushed to the Indian Bank and presented a complaint on the same day but in vain. Again he gave complaints on 18-8-2013 and 21-8-2013 to the Deputy General Manager, Chittoor but in vain. He received a letter from customer service cell stating that the transaction on 18-7-2013 at Kadapa was successful. He approached Banking Ombudsmen, A.P. Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad by filing a complaint on 28-8-2013 about ATM transaction but Ombudsmen closed the complaint on 25-11-2013 without giving solution to the problem. On 15-12-2013 Banking Ombudsmen addressed endorsement stating that the said complaint was closed and advised to approach any other legal forum for appropriate remedy.
3. It is further averred that the ATM transaction machine was invalid and no money was received by him. There was no video coverage in ATM room. The bank violated RBI guidelines for non-providing video coverage as well as security and the respondent is liable to pay Rs. 100/- per day after completion of 12 days for not paying the amount. Thus there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondent bank. A legal notice was issued to the respondent on 26-4-2014 but in vain. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
4. Respondent filed counter denying the allegations regarding deficiency of service, about the transaction dt. 18-7-2013 and not receiving money by the complainant as pleaded and called upon the complainant to prove all of them. It is further contended that the transaction dt. 18-7-2013 was successful as there was no excess cash found during the EOD of cash on 18-7-2013 at the onsite ATM of Kadapa Branch and that the physical cash was tallied with the balance shown as per ATM journal printing and there was no machine breakdown for ATM Kadapa branch on 18-7-2013. All these facts are born by record. The complainant was informed about the same by the customer service cell of the respondent bank at their corporate office, Chennai dt. 20-8-2013. The complainant also approached Banking Ombudsmen, satisfied with the documents filed by the respondent bank to show the transaction was successful and closed the complaint. The other allegations in the complaint by the complainant are not tenable since the transaction was successful and complainant withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- as per records. The complaint is not maintainable and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the ATM Transaction dt. 18-7-2013 was not successful and the complainant had not received money from the machine as pleaded?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs from the respondent as prayed for?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A9 documents are marked and on behalf of respondent Ex. B1 document is marked by consent.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and considered written versions filed by both parties and perused the citations.
8. Point Nos.1 & 2. Learned counsel for complainant submits that the transaction dt. 18-7-2013 by complainant at respondent’s bank situated near NTR circle, Kadapa was not successful as he has not received cash of Rs. 20,000/- though he tried to withdraw the same from ATM machine and record shows the same. Therefore, the complainant proved the claim and is entitled for the reliefs. Per contra learned counsel for respondent submits that the documents filed by the complainant, himself shows that the transaction of ATM withdrawal dt. 18-7-2013 is successful and there is no evidence placed by the complainant to shows that the transaction was failed and he did not withdraw the amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for respondent. The main contention of the complainant is that the transaction of ATM dt. 18-7-2013 for withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/-is not successful and the respondent bank has not responded for payment of Rs. 20,000/-, though debited to his account. But a perusal of Ex. A1 filed by the complainant shows that the transaction dt. 18-7-2013 at ATM center was successful and cash was dispensed. The same document further shows that physically cash was tallied with the balance shown as per ATM journal printing. Ex. A2 is letter from Zonal Office, Hyderabad to Banking Ombudsmen Office, Hyderabad and the same shows that the transaction was successful and cash dispensed. Ex. A3 is letter addressed by respondent to Nodal Officer, Customer service Indian bank Zonal Office, Hyderabad submitting that the records of journal printing of ATM regarding ATM transaction, which shows the transaction is successful and amount of Rs. 20,000/- was withdrawn. The other documents Exs. A4, A5, A6 and A7 do not support the complainant’s case that he had not withdrawn amount of Rs. 20,000/- and not received cash of Rs. 20,000/- from ATM machine on 18-7-2013. Exs. A8 & A9 is legal notice and receipts for sending of legal notice to the respondent. Ex. B1 is application for debit card proforma. This is field only to shows the terms and conditions for issuing of debit card holders.
10. Though the contention of the complainant is that he had not received cash of Rs. 20,000/- on 18-7-2013, when he tried to withdraw the same from ATM machine at Kadapa branch of respondent, but there is no evidence placed by the complainant that he had not received cash from ATM machine. The debit card was with complainant. He personally went to ATM Center. He alone to knows four digit pin number of his debit card, he says that he personally used the card. If such is the case there was no possibility for fraud. There is no any other person to observe the same by C.C. Camera or by guard at the ATM Center. On the other hand the records filed by the complainant i.e. Exs. A1 to A4 clearly goes to show that the transaction of ATM on 18-7-2013 was successful and on physical cash verification at the branch was tallied and journal printing also shows that the amount was withdrawn by the complainant on 18-7-2013. Therefore, there is no iota of evidence placed by the complainant to shows that the transaction of ATM dt. 18-7-2014 was unsuccessful and not withdrawn cash of Rs. 20,000/- had not withdrawn by him, as such we hold that the transaction was successful and complainant received cash of Rs. 20,000/- in ATM transaction dt. 18-7-2013. The Joint Bank Statement filed by him also proved the same. Therefore, we hold there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the respondent to cause mental agony or inconvenience to the complainant as pleaded. The complainant failed to prove his case. The judgements relied by the complainant is no way helpful to his case as the transaction was successful and he had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 18-7-2013. Hence, the points 1 & 2 are answered against the complainant.
11. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances no costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 16th April 2015
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : Nil For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of letter dt. 20-8-2013 addressed to the complainant by customer service cell, Chennai.
Ex. A2 Letter dt. 22-11-2013 addressed to the complainant by Ombudsmen office, RBI, Hyderabad along with cash summary report, proof of successful transaction, switch report and no excess found and no breakdown report.
Ex. A3 Head Office, Kadapa letter dt. 27-11-2013 addressed to the Nodal officer for customer service.
Ex. A4 Zonal office letter dt. 2-12-2013 addressed to Banking Ombudsmen.
Ex. A5 The Banking Ombudsmen of A.P. report dt. 15-1-2014.
Ex. A6 Letter dt. 28-2-2014 addressed by the complainant to Central Information officer, Chennai.
Ex. A7 P/c of letter dt. 21-3-2014 addressed to the complainant under Right to Information act.
Ex. A8 Office copy of the legal notice dt. 26-4-2014.
Ex. A9 Postal Receipt.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents.
Ex. B1 Application for Debit card issued by the Indian Bank.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri G.M.B. Muralikrishna, Advocate for complainant
- Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for respondent.
B.V.P.