District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 16/06/2010
CC. No.81/2010
N.C.Unnikrishnan
S/o.Late P.Kuttykrishnan Nair
‘Rohini’
Near Kongad Post Office
PO Kongad
Palakkad District. - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
The Chief Manager
State Bank of Travancore
Cherplassery Branch
P.B.No.51, SICO Towers
Cherplassery, Dist Palakkad. - Opposite party
(By Adv.John John)
O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
Brief case of the complainant:
Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.26,060/- with the State Bank of Travancore on 18/11/09. After depositing the amount the total balance was Rs.31,013.74. Complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.12,000/- on the same day and the balance as per the ATM customer advice TRX No.1727 was Rs.19,013.74. Thereafter on 04/02/10, complainant tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- but found that the balance amount was only Rs.4,097.74 instead of Rs.19,013.74. Complainant immediately lodged a complaint before State Bank of Travancore, Cherplassery Branch office. After checking in the computer, bank officials informed the complainant that on 18/11/2009 there was another withdrawal for Rs.15,000/-. According to complainant, he was withdrawn only Rs.12,000/- on that day. Another complaint was lodged before the Banking Ombudsman. On enquiry regarding the complaint, it was informed that both the transactions were successful and the complaint was closed. Complainant further submitted that lock system of the ATM counter was not working at that time. Complainant asked the opposite party to look into the photographs in the ATM camera to know the culprit, but it was informed that the said ATM does not have the camera facility. Complainant submits that if there had been said facility, his case would have been proved clearly. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to refund the actual loss of Rs.15,000/- along with Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings.
The main contention of the opposite party is that on 18/11/2009, in addition to the admitted withdrawal of Rs.12,000/-, complainant has also withdrawn Rs.15,000/-. Therefore the balance in his account was only Rs.4,097.74 as on 18/11/2009. When the complainant came up before the opposite party with his complaint, opposite party immediately took up the matter with the ATM Nodal officer and it was informed by the Nodal officer that both the transactions were successful with the transaction nos.1727 and 1728 respectively and the time gap between the two transaction was less than a minute. The concerned authorities were also of the opinion that the above two transactions were done by the same person. Opposite party submits that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant instead complainant is liable to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensatory cost.
Both parties filed respective affidavits. Exts.A1 to A12 marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party has not adduced any documentary evidence on their part. Opposite party filed affidavit.
Now the issues that arises for consideration are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost complainant is entitled to?
Issue No.1:
An amount of Rs.31,013.74 in the account of the complainant as on 18/11/2009 is admitted by both the parties. According to the complainant, he has withdrawn only Rs.12,000/- on 18/11/2009. But as per the bank records after withdrawal of Rs.12,000/- at 11:32:27, another withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- at 11:33:25 has taken place. Both the transaction according to the opposite party is successful.
Ext.A5 clearly shows that two transactions has taken place on the same day within a gap of one minute. It is the case of the complainant that he has not withdrawn Rs.15,000/- on 18/11/2009. But there is no evidence before the forum as to fact that who has done the second transaction dt.18/11/2009. Hence in the absence of any concrete evidence it is not proper to order the opposite party to make good the loss of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.
Complainant has alleged that the lock systems of the ATM counter was not working properly and no camera facility has been provided at the ATM counters. Opposite party has contented that lock system was working properly and that provision of providing a camera in ATM counter is not a mandatory one. It is only an additional security measure provided by the bank. Further opposite party submits that even if any camera is available in the ATM, the photographs of the person will be stored in the memory only for a period of 90 days.
In this respect we are of the view that when a bank provides service through an automatic teller machine, it is the duty of the bank to provide adequate security measures and safeguards like proper locking facility, security guards and CCTV camera facility to ensure maximum protection to the customers. Bank cannot escape liability saying that it is not a mandatory provision. Even if it is an old ATM counter subsequent affixing of CCTV camera is possible. Complainant has complained within 90 days of which the 1st transaction has happened. Admittedly had there been a CCTV facility, culprit can be caught since photograph will be stored in the memory for a period of 90 days. In this aspect we find opposite party deficient in service.
Hence complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of order till realization. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of November, 2010
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K,
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopies of ATM customer advices dt.18/11/2009 and 04/02/10
Ext.A2 – Letter sent by complainant to opposite party
Ext.A3 – Letter dt.03/02/2010 sent by Banking Ombudsman to complainant
Ext.A4 – Letter dt.11/03/2010 sent by complainant to Banking Ombudsman
Ext.A5 – Letter dt.20/02/2010 sent by opposite party to complainant
Ext.A6 – Copy of letter dt.16/03/2010 sent by opposite party to complainant
Ext.A7 - Letter dt.25/03/2010 sent by Banking Ombudsman to complainant
Ext.A8 - Letter dt.30/03/2010 sent by complainant to Banking Ombudsman
Ext.A9 - Letter dt.05/05/2010 sent by complainant to opposite party
Ext.A10 - Letter dt.19/05/2010 sent by Banking Ombudsman to complainant
Ext.A11 -Letter dt.24/05/2010 sent by SBT complaints cell to complainant
Ext.A12 - Letter dt.03/06/2010 sent by opposite party to complainant
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost (Not allowed)
