| Complaint Case No. CC/10/18 |
| | | | 1. Madineni Sarala, W/o. Ramesh, Occu: House wife, R/o. H.No.6-1-247, VDOs Colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam Dist. | | Madineni Sarala, W/o. Ramesh, Occu: House wife, R/o. H.No.6-1-247, VDOs Colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam Dist. | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ...........Complainant(s) | | Versus | | 1. The Branch Manager,S.B.I. Wyra Road,Main Branch, Khammam. | | The Branch Manager,S.B.I. Wyra Road,Main Branch, Khammam. | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh | | 2. 2. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank,Vijay Nagar Colony Branch,Hyderabad. | | 2. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank,Vijay Nagar Colony Branch,Hyderabad. | | Hyderabad | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | | BEFORETHE DISTIRCT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 6th day of January, 2011. CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com, LL.B., President 2. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.18/2010 Between: Madineni Sarala, w/o.Ramesh, age: 46 years, occu:Housewife, r/o.H.No.6-1-247, VDO’s colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam urban Mandal & District. …. Complainant. and 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Wyra Road Branch, Khammam. 2. The Branch manager, Andhra Bank, Vijayanagar colony Branch, Hyderabad. …Opposite parties. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for complainant; Smt.P.Sandya Rani, Advocate for opposite party No.1; notice of opposite party No.2 served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is having S.B.A/c.No.10442604029 with the branch of opposite party No.1. On 4-11-2009 she had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- through A.T.M. of Andhra Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Hyderabad, which is under the control of opposite party No.2. Subsequently, on verification with her account, the complainant noticed that there is double entry of withdrawal made from her account on 4-11-2009. In fact she had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- through the A.T.M. The complainant made application before opposite party No.1 by mentioning the defective entry in her account in the opposite party No.1 bank. Even after written request and after several oral requests made by the complainant, the opposite party No.1 failed to comply her demand. On that the complainant got issued legal notice on 4-1-2010. After receiving the legal notice also, the opposite party No.1 failed to rectify the defective entry in her account. As such the complainant approached the forum for redressal. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed the following documents the same were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.6. Ex.A.1 - Photocopy of application made by the complainant, dt.5-12-2009. Ex.A.2 - Photocopy of Saving pass book Ex.A.3 - Photocopy of Statement of account Ex.A.4 - office copy of legal notice, dt.4-1-2010 Ex.A.5 - Postal acknowledgment Ex.A.6 - Postal receipt. On receipt of notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed counter. Notice of opposite party No.2 served, called absent. In the counter opposite party No.1 submitted that immediately after receipt of letter, dt.5-12-2009, the opposite party No.1 forwarded the same to their higher office i.e. R.B.O., Warangal to know the facts. Soon after S.B.I., R.B.O., Warangal made enquiry regarding double entry with opposite party No.2, from where the complainant withdrawn the amount. After through enquiry, the opposite party No.1 immediately credited the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the account of complainant on 21-4-2010, the same was informed to her and also submitted that there is no negligence on their part, the amount was adjusted within a short period as early as possible to the opposite party No.1, but the complainant paid deaf ear to the words of opposite party No.1 and filed present complaint. As such there is no delay or deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 no documents were filed. The counsel for opposite party No.1 filed a memo to treat the contents of their counter as written arguments on their behalf. Upon perusing the material papers available on record, now the points that arose for consideration are, 1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim? 2. To what relief? Point No.1: In this case the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- through A.T.M. of Andhra Bank, Vijaynagar branch, Hyderabad. Subsequently, the complainant noticed that there was double entry of withdrawal from her account. The complainant made a written representation with opposite party No.1 and she is on belief that the mistake will be rectified. As per the complaint, even after receipt of written requests, the opposite party No.1 not complied her demand under one pretext or the other and finally on 4-1-2010 she got issued legal notice. Even after receipt of legal notice, opposite party No.1 failed to comply the same. The complainant filed the present complaint. From the material available on record, we observed that an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was deducted from the account of complainant, which did not reach the hands of the complainant. Due to technical error in the A.T.M., remained with opposite party bank about 5 ½ months and definitely the opposite party had earned interest therein. It is also observed that the complainant had also given complaint for return of the said amount and also got issued legal notice, which was marked as Ex.A.4. It is further observed that after filing this complaint, after receiving notice from the forum, just one day before the date of appearance, the opposite party No.1 remitted back the amount to the account of the complainant. From the above, the opposite party No.1 had taken over 5 ½ months to rectify the mistake of wrong entry and for all these days the complainant had suffered due to delay, in withholding amount of Rs.10,000/- for all the period i.e. from 4-11-2010 to 21-4-2010 and remitted just one day before date of appearance amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 bank. In the interest of justice the complainant should be compensated for her sufferance. Taking the amount involved and the period of delay in to consideration, the opposite party No.1 bank has to pay interest for that period. The similar finding was observed by the Hon’ble Union Territory Redressal Commission, Chandiragh in Satish Bansal Vs ICICI Bank I (2010) CPJ 576. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the complainant. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party No.1 to pay the interest @ 8% P.A. for the period (i.e. from 4-11-2009 to 21-4-2010) on the amount of Rs.10,000/- and also awarded Rs.3,000/- towards damages and Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant. We direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount with in one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from the date of this order till actual payment. The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed. Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 6th day of January, 2011. PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: None Witnesses examined for opposite parties: None Exhibits marked for Complainant: Ex.A.1 - Photocopy of application made by the complainant, dt.5-12-2009. Ex.A.2 - Photocopy of Saving pass book Ex.A.3 - Photocopy of Statement of account Ex.A.4 - office copy of legal notice, dt.4-1-2010 Ex.A.5 - Postal acknowledgment Ex.A.6 - Postal receipt. Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- Nil - PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM | |
