IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 28th day of October, 2016
Filed on 08.09.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.265/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Shamsudeen. A. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Jameelas, Alisserry Ward Alappuzha Convent Square
Valiyakulam, Alappuzha P.B. No.184, ACJ Mansion
Pin – 688 001 CCSB Road, Alappuzha – 1
(By Adv. Cheriyan Kuruvila)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant has an SB account with the Convent Square Branch of the Federal Bank. On 8.2.2015 complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM counter of the opposite party and he got a reply that “sorry not to proceed”. Again the complainant tried two times to withdraw the amount. But he did not get the amount. Thereafter he cancelled the transaction. Then he complained about it to the opposite party and he was informed that the amount was drawn by him from the account. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The allegation that complainant did not get the cash from the ATM counter for the withdrawal made on 8.2.2015 is not true and hence denied. The bank has verified said transaction and found that the transaction was successful and the complainant got the cash. The complainant has lodged a complaint with the bank on 19.3.2015. On enquiry it was understood that the withdrawal was successful and the complainant obtained the cash. The journal report available in ATM confirmed that the transaction was successful and the cash was taken. Complainant has no right to file a complaint against the opposite party. Complainant lodged the complaint only after 40 days. On account of the delay the bank could not examine the video images of the CCTV camera of the day, since it was over written. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Opposite party was examined as RW1. One witness was examined as RW2. Document produced marked as Ext.B1.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
5. On 8.2.2015 the complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of the opposite party. He did not get the amount. Instead of that he received a message “not to proceed”. Again he tried to withdraw the amount, but he did not receive any amount. So he cancelled the transaction. Then he came to know that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was deducted from his account on 9.2.2015. So he made a complaint to the opposite party. Since there was no action from the opposite party he gave a written complaint on 20.2.2015. He did not get any reply, so he made another complaint on 19.3.2015 in the form given by the opposite party. Thereafter, the opposite party informed that the transaction on 8.2.2015 was successful. The opposite party filed version stating that the complainant lodged the complaint only on 19.3.2015. On getting the complaint, they enquired the matter and was understood that the withdrawal was successful. In order to substantiate their contention they produced the journal printer transaction report of 8.2.2015 of ATM counter of opposite party and it marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 shows that Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn and the response code 000. The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party has not given the CCTV footage of the transaction. The contention of the opposite party is that they have received the written complaint only on 19.3.2015 ie. after 40 days of the transaction. Since there is delay in getting the complaint, they could not examine the video image of the CCTV camera of the day as it was over written. According to the complainant he tried to withdraw the amount on 8.2.2015. The amount was deducted from his account on 9.2.2015, he made complaint to the opposite party on the same day and made the written complaint on 20.2.2015. He produced the copy of that letter dated 20.2.2015. But according to the opposite party, they received the written complaint only on 19.3.2015 ie. after 40 days. So they did not keep the CCTV camera of the day. But while cross examining the RW1 he deposed before the Forum to the question put by the complainant, “CCTV …................................................................................................” So it is clear that they have examined the still photos in the presence of the complainant. It also proves that they have knowledge about the transaction. So the question remains is they have knowledge about the transaction why they failed to produce the CCTV footage in respect of the transaction of the complainant. Moreover, if the display on the ATM show “not to proceed” how the complainant can withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the said transaction. So it is difficult to rely the entries in Ext.B1. In Appeal No.398/14 Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission laid down that, “Customer Service Department (CSD) of Reserve Bank of India issued a communication of National Payment Corporation of India issuing guide lines to all Member banks to make provision in the customer complaint form for request for CCTV/Camera images. Thus in this case burden is on the opposite party to produce CCTV footage in respect of transaction of the complainant.” Apart from that in a decision reported in CPJ 2015 Volume III page 136 Hon’ble National Commission finds that the opposite party was deficient in rendering service to the complainant by not making available of CCTV footage to the complainant. In order to substantiate the contention of the opposite party they ought to have produced the CCTV footage. In the absence of such evidence the opposite party is precluded from stating that the complainant had withdrawn a amount of Rs.10,000/- from their ATM. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the amount to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 09.02.2015 till realization to the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of October, 2016. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) : Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - A. Shamsudeen (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the letter dated 1.9.2015
Ext.A2 - Copy of the pass book
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Abraham. M.V. (Witness)
RW2 - Anand V.K. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of journal printer transaction report of 8.2.2015
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
