IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of September, 2016
Filed on 17.10.2014
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.264/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. S. Basheer 1. The Branch Manager
Ragamalika, Perungala Syndicate Bank, BIC 4101 Branch
Kayamkulam, Alappuzha Dt. Kayamkulam, W. 13, House No.301
Pin – 690 559 Thayyil Building, Kayamkulam – 690 502
(By Adv. Santhi Raj) (By Adv. P.K. Mathew)
2. The Manager, State Bank of India
P.B. No. 32, Nelson Building
Kayamkulam – 690 502
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant had been maintained a savings bank account in the first opposite party the Syndicate Bank, Kayamkulam. On 26.1.2014 at about 7.1 p.m. and 7.2 p.m. complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the ATM the 2nd opposite party. But he had not received any amount and received a slip in which 000 was printed. Then he came to know that Rs.20,000/- was deducted from his account. He enquired about it and got a reply that there was no excess money found in the SBI – ATM. The opposite parties have not given any clear communication regarding the transaction of the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.20,000/- with 12% interest and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The money alleged to be lost is from the ATM of SBI and not from the ATM of Syndicate Bank. The first opposite party is only the banker of the account holder, the ATM transaction took place in the 2nd opposite party’s ATM. There is no defective service on the part of the bank. Since the customer complained that he did not receive the money this Bank raised a dispute before the SBI and SBI has intimated this Bank that both the two transactions on 26.1.2014 is successful with Trace No.3915 and 3916 and their ATM balance tally and the fact is duly communicated to the complainant.
3. Complainant filed petition to implead SBI Kayamkulam as the 2nd opposite party, the petition allowed and issued notice against the additional 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party filed version is as follows:-
The first opposite party Syndicate Bank is the account holding bank of the complainant and they issued debit card to the complainant. If any complaint occurs with regard to the operation of ATM the account holding bank will redress the grievance of the customer and after that the ATM operating bank and the account holding bank can settle the matter. Complainant operated the ATM 2 times on 26.1.2014, as a customer of the Syndicate Bank and both the transactions were successful. There is no excess cash and ATM balance delayed with other records. If the operations failed there will be excess cash and account will not tally. The pictures of the CCTV footage are not available because of the pictures will be deleted after 3 months. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. The first opposite party was examined as RW1 and 2nd opposite party was examined as RW2. Document produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B5.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
6. According to the complainant, on 26.1.2014 he went to the ATM of 2nd opposite party and tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- each at about 7.1 p.m. and 7.2 p.m., but he did not get the amount and instead of that he got a slip in which it was printed as 000. Exts.A1 and A2 evidenced the same. Then he came to know that Rs.20,000/- was deducted from his account. He complained about it to the opposite party, but so far no result. According to the first opposite party, when the customer complained that he did not receive the money, they raised a dispute before the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party has intimated the first opposite party that both the transactions on 26.1.2014 were successful and their ATM balance was tallying. They further stated that since the two operations are successful, Rs10,000/- each is debited from his account through ATM transactions. The 2nd opposite party filed version stating that there is no excess cash and ATM balance tallied with other report. In order to substantiate their contention, the opposite has produced the journal records which marked as Ext.B3 series. While cross examining the RW1 he admitted that they had got the complaint from the complainant on 30.1.2014. The transaction was done by the complainant on 26.1.2014. So it is clear that the complaint was filed within a short time. RW1 the manager of the first opposite party deposed before the Forum that the manager during that period registered a complaint before the 2nd opposite party and they got a reply that the transaction was successful. Letter dated 3.2.2014 issued to the Branch Manager of the first opposite party informing the transaction done by the complainant was successful is also produced and marked as Ext.B3 series 2. It also shows that the opposite party had knowledge about the complaint from the date of complaint made by the complainant to the first opposite party. While cross examining the RW2 to the question put by the learned counsel of the complainant, “ …............................................................................................................................... ” But it is clear from Ext.A3 that on 31.1.2014 itself the complainant had lodged a complaint regarding his ATM transaction to the Syndicate Bank, the first opposite party. 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 2nd 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 the instant case it is an admitted fact that complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the ATM of 2nd opposite party. According to the opposite parties, the transaction was successful. But according to the complainant he did not receive Rs.20,000/-, but an amount of Rs.20,000/- was deducted from his account. In order to substantiate the contention of the opposite parties, the 2nd opposite party ought to have produced the CCTV footage. In the absence of such evidence, the opposite parties are precluded from stating that the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the ATM of 2nd opposite party on 26.1.2014 at about 7.1 p.m. and 7.2 p.m. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- with 9% interest per annum from 26.1.2014 till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2016. Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - S. Basheer (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the ATM slip
Ext.A2 - Copy of the ATM slip
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Uniform Format for lodging of ATM complaints
Ext.A4 - Copy of No Excess Cash Certificate
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - T.K. Babu (Witness)
RW2 - Libin David (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the application for Syndicate bank global debit/ATM card
Ext.B2 - Statement of a/c
Ext.B3 & B4 - Journal records
Ext.B5 - Letter dated 3.2.2014
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
