Date of Filing : 07.09.2011
Date of Order : 03.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 3rd 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. 193 / 2011
Sri. Srinivasmurthy,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o. Late Venkatarayappa,
#630/62, Municipal Layout, M.G. Road,
Chikkaballapur – 562 101.
(By Sri. R. Manjunath, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
APMC Branch, M.G. Road,
Chikkaballapur – 562 101.
2. The Manager,
ATM Incarge,
State Bank of Mysore,
Chikkaballapur Main Branch, BB Road,
Chikkaballapur – 562 101.
3. The Chief Manager of State Bank of Mysore,
C.B.A.B. Complex Branch,
(40217) Cauvery Bhavan, K.G. Road,
Bangalore – 560 009.
4. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
K.G. Road,
Bangalore – 560 009.
5. The Managing Director,
State Bank of Mysore,
Central Office, 8th Floor, K.G. Road,
Bangalore – 560 009.
6. The Asst. General Manager,
ATM Switch Centre,
State Bank of Global IT Centre, Belapur,
Navi Mumbai.
(By Sri. V. Sridhar Murthy, Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OP to pay to the Complainant Rs.50,000/- are necessary:
Complainant is having S.B. Account with OP3 since 8 years wherein he is getting his pension and retirement benefits and also having ATM Card. On 04.06.2011, Complainant went to ATM Counter of OP1 and drew Rs.2,000/- at 10.30 AM at ATM-2 and left. On 06.06.2011, Complainant went to the same ATM-2 to draw certain amount and when cross checked the balance he was shocked to note that on 04.06.2011 Rs.25,000/- was mis-operated from his account from ATM-1 which is situated besides ATM-2 at the same ATM room. This is negligent & deficiency in service of OP1. This was intimated to OP1 and he was asked to lodge complaint with OP3 and he lodged the complaint on 06.06.2011 itself. He was assured that he will be refunded the money, but till today no amount has been paid to him. OP vaguely replied. On 07.06.2011, Complainant visited OP1 branch and filed complaint and submitted copy of the complaint submitted to OP3. On 10.06.2011 he approached OP1 again and then lodged complaint with Police in C. Miss No. 274/11. On 15.06.2011, Complainant lodged complaint with RBI. On 08.08.2011 Bank Ombudsman based on the JP log & switch report stated that transaction was complete and enclosed the JP log. Notice was issued to Ops on 05.08.2011. Hence, the Complaint.
2. In brief version of Ops are:
Account of the Complainant and ATM Card are admitted. On 04.06.2011 at 10.31 AM Complainant had drawn Rs.2,000/- from ATM-2. Complainant withdrew Rs.25,000/- from ATM-1 in transaction No. 5048, according to ATM journal print log, it reflects that transaction was complete and he had drawn the money. A Card and its password/Pin lies with the Complainant and it is very secret. Without using it and operating, nobody can draw the money. Complainant himself had drawn the money. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties had filed their respective affidavits and documents. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our findings are:
(A) Negative
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant is having S.B. Account with OP3 and he was having ATM Card of OP3 only. Regarding any deficiency with respect to ATM, OP3 alone is responsible. Why he has impleaded Ops 1, 2, 4 to 6, there is no answer. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant on one side and the Ops 1, 2, 4 to 6 on the other side. Merely he lodged the Complaint with these Ops, it does not mean that there is privity of contract between Ops 1, 2, 4 to 6 on one side and the Complainant on the other side. It is also an admitted fact that in the OP1 there are 2 ATM Machines in the same place. It is also an admitted fact that on 04.06.2011 Complainant went to ATM-2 of OP1 and drew Rs.2,000/- at 10.31 AM. Complainant says that he drew Rs.2,000/- at 10.30 AM, any way document produced clearly proves that he drew money at 10.31 AM.
7. Complainant says that he went away on 04.06.2011 after drawing Rs.2,000/- went away and again on 06.06.2011 he went to the same ATM-2 of OP1 to draw the money and checked availability of the amount and came to know that Rs.25,000/- has been mis-operated. This has been denied by the OPs. There is no proof to show that Complainant had gone to ATM-2 of OP1 on 06.06.2011. Anyway Ops have contended that Complainant on 04.06.2011 itself had drawn Rs.25,000/- from ATM-1 of OP1 under transaction No. 5048 at 10.33 AM. This is fully corroborated by the documents produced by the OP and CD and the photographs of the CCTV produced by the OP. When there are 2 machines, Complainant had drawn the money from one ATM is admitted and within 2 minutes he has drawn another money from another ATM in the same Counter. Without the ATM Card & without Pin, nobody can draw any money from ATM. Complainant is the custodian of the Card and he is only the person who knows the password. Without those, ATM machine cannot be operated and no amount can be drawn. By operating ATM machine, this amount has been drawn as per the JP log sheet. It means transaction has been made by the Complainant and he had drawn the money. Otherwise, Complainant might have given the Card to somebody else and that culprit might have used it wrongly. For the negligence of the Complainant, OP can never be blamed. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and there is no negligence. If another person drawn the money behind the back of the Complainant, Complainant is at liberty to persuade the Police in the matter and get arrested the concerned, but that has not been done. Hence, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service. Hence, we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.
3. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under 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 3rd day of April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
