Karnataka

Kolar

CC/61/2017

Sri.Manjunath.N.C, S/o.Chalapathi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Complaint Team Manager, HDFC Phone Banking - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 14/09/2017

Date of Order: 28/02/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 28^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 61 OF 2017

Sri. Manjunath N.C

S/o. Chalapathi, Aged About 27 Years,

Nandiganahally Village & Post,

Murugamalla Hobli, Chintamani Taluk,

Chikkaballapur District.                                  ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In-person)

- V/s -

1) Complaint Team Manager,

HDFC Phone Banking, Bangalore.

(Rep. by Sri. Shilpa Sharad, Advocate)

 

2) The Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd.,

IFSC Code:0549, 95/32,

New No.276, Konappana Agrahara,

Electronic City, Bangalore-100.

(Rep. by Sri. Shilpa Sharad, Advocate)

 

3) The Operational Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd., IFSC Code:0549,

95/32, New No.276, Konappana Agrahara,

Electronic City, Bangalore-100.

(Rep. by Sri. Shilpa Sharad, Advocate)

 

4) The Nodal Officer, HDFC Bank Ltd.,

1^st Floor, 103/31, 26^th Main, 4^th T Block,

Jayanagar, B’lore-41.

(Rep. by Sri. Shilpa Sharad, Advocate)

 

5) The Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd.,

Chintamani-563125.

(Rep. by Sri. B.S. Ravi Praksh, Advocate)

 

6) The CMS Team, Karnataka Bank Ltd.,

ATM Id: kbl-18202-klr, Chelur Road,

Chintamani-563 125

(Exparte)                                                               …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDERS:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as in-person has sought relief against opposite parties for refund of Rs.6,400/- and compensation of Rs.100/- per day till payment and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, he is an account holder in HDFC Bank Limited, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore-560100, Karnataka, with Customer ID No.63380126, Account No. 50100111995352.  And that on 17.04.2017 when he tried to withdraw the amount of Rs.6,400/- from Karnataka Bank ATM (ATM ID: KBL-18202-KLR) located in Chelur Road, Chintamani, Rs.6,400/- was debited from his account, but he did not received the cash from that ATM.  The Security Guard by name Shankara had informed that, there is an Server problem.

 

(b)    It is contended that, when he tried in another ATM it is shown “in sufficient balance” and the balance shown as Rs.842/- instead of Rs.7,242/- in other Karnataka Bank ATM.  Immediately he logon to HDFC Net banking and checked transaction details, it is shown Rs.6,400/- transaction successful.  When he checked the ATM ID through net banking it is shown the ATM ID is KBL-18202-KLR.  That ATM ID differ from amount disputed ATM ID.  As per the details disputed amount is Rs.6,400/- dated: 17.04.2017, disputed time : 04.44 pm, reference number of transaction is 710716381422, ATM ID KDL-18202, KLR, on rec: 381422.

 

(c)    It is further contended that, the very same day he had called to phone banking at 7.00 pm and complained about it.  They have given complaint ID as 1297678 and assured to resolve within 07 days.  Then replied as transaction was successful the customer successfully received the cash from ATM as per Karnataka Bank update.  Again he had complained to HDFC Branch in Chintamani through mailsupport@hdfcbank.com, disputes@hdfcbank.com.  They replied as we have given information as per Karnataka Bank Update.  Later on as per phone banking update he approached his home branch (HDFC Bank Limited, Konappana Agrahara, IFSC Code-0549) and given complaint through dispute form, requested for CC TV footage.  So many efforts with Karnataka Bank and HDFC Bank were also of no use.  Even after 05 months of the incident also Ops have not given CC TV footage nor refund of money.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint by seeking above set-out reliefs.

 

(d)    The complainant has submitted below mentioned documents marked as Exhibits-P.1 to P.7:-

(i) Copy of the dispute form submitted to HDFC Bank dated: 11.05.2017

(ii) Call summary of Mobile prepaid bill

(iii) Copy of HDFC Bank statement with reference number

(iv) Copy of pass-book entries

(v) Copy of view statement analysis

(vi) Copy of Expense Analysis

(vii) Copies of email conversation with the OP in different dates running to 32 sheets.

 

03.   In response to notices issued, OP No.1 to OP No.4 and OP No.5 have put their appearance through their learned counsel and have submitted their written version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.  As per the proceedings noted in order-sheet OP No.6 placed exparte.

 

(a)    OP Nos.1 to 4 contends that, the complainant had availed service from ATM of OP Nos.5 and 6 and they were suppose to provide CC TV footage as owner of both ATM centre and machine.  Even on complainant’s request, on many occasions OP Nos.1 to 4 officially called upon OP Nos.5 & 6 to provide CC TV footage, but they have not provided, and also neglected to respond.  And as per RBI and Banking Rules all Banks have to honor other Bank customers to transact and every operation is computerized.  In this case OP Nos. 5 & 6 are responsible to maintain 24 hours CC TV at ATM centre and also responsible to keep such recording for 90 days under law of land, which they failed to provide in spite of many mails to them.  Hence case against OP Nos.1 to 4 is not maintainable.  So prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

(b)    OP No.5 contends that, it is no way concern with the transaction of complainant.  The amount was drawn successfully on the said day before OP No.6.  The OP No.6 is only responsible for the said transaction.  This OP No.5 is not necessary party to the proceedings.  So prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.

 

05.   As per the proceedings noted in order-sheet dated: 14.02.2018 evidence of OP Nos.1 to 5 is considered as Nil.

 

06.   Heard arguments of complainant.

 

07.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(1) Whether is there deficiency in service on part of the Ops as alleged by the complainant?

 

(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as he sought?

 

(3) What order?

 

08.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Affirmative against OP Nos.5 & 6  

                        and in the Negative against OP Nos.1 to 4.

POINT (2):-      In the Affirmative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) to (2):-

09.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

10.   On perusal of pleadings, versions and documents it is true that on 17.04.2017 a sum of Rs.6,400/- was withdrawn at ATM ID KBL 18202-Klr.  The complainant’s grievance is that, he has not received the said amount from the ATM machine and asked Ops to provide CC TV footage of that particular time.

 

11.   Here it is worth to note that, in the version of OP Nos.1 to 4 it says as hereunder:-

“As per RBI and Banking Rules all Banks have to honor other Bank’s customers to transact and every operation is computerized.  In this case OP Nos.5 & 6 are responsible to maintain 24 hours CC TV at ATM centre and also responsible to keep such recording for 90 days, which they failed to provide despite many mails to them”.

 

12.   On perusal of e-mail transactions of complainant with OP Nos.1 to 4, it is true that, OP Nos.1 to 4 did their service promptly and tried to get CC TV footage from OP Nos.5 & 6.  But OP Nos. 5 & 6 being owner and control authority of said ATM has not responded.  Hence in our opinion, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.5 and 6 for not providing the CC TV footage to complainant or to OP Nos.1 to 4.

 

13.   Admittedly as per the submission of OP Nos.1 to 4 as per the rules of RBI it is bound duty of OP Nos.5 & 6 to provide CC TV footage of the day of incident.  When it failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.5 & 6.

 

14.   Therefore with the above discussion we come to conclusion that, OP Nos.5 & 6 are liable to pay Rs.6,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order and also compensation of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant.

 

POINT (3):-

15.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint is allowed as against OP Nos.5 & 6 with cost of Rs.1,000/- and the same is dismissed against OP Nos.1 to 4 with no costs.

 

02. The complainant is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.6,400/- being the disputed amount and Rs.4,000/- as compensation from OP Nos. 5 & 6 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of pronouncement of this order till realization.

 

03.   We grant 30 days time to OP Nos.5 & 6 to comply the above said order.

 

04.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 28^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                        PRESIDENT