Complaint filed on: 05-03-2012
Disposed on: 17-10-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.479/2012
DATED THIS THE 17th OCTOMBER 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Chandramma.L,
13/4, 1st Cross, Swasthick Road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore-27
V/s
Opposite party: -
The Manager,
CANARA BANK,
S.R.Nagar branch,
Sampangirama Nagara Branch,
Mission Road,
Bangalore
O R D E R
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER.
This is a complaint filed by complainant against the OP, praying to pass an order, directing OP to pay Rs.25,000=00 alongwith expenses of Rs.15,000=00 and other charges.
2. The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against op are that the complainant has tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/- from Canara Bank ATM, at Shantinagar on 15/2/2012 at 8:22 p.m. but she did not receive the amount and slip from ATM machine but the sum was debited from her account. She placed a complaint at Canara Bank, Sampangirama Nagar branch on 16/2/2012. But Op did not respond to complaint. She again enquired the status of complaint on 28/2/2012, op told her to wait for one more day to verify it. The same response came from Op on 29/2/2012 also. Finally, after several enquiries, the bank personnel told her that she has received amount from the ATM on same transaction, so it cannot be refunded. The complainant requested Op to refer the CCTV installed at ATM counter, for which Op manager told her to file FIR. The complainant accordingly filed a complaint against Op at Wilson Garden police station. Later Op told that they haven’t installed CCTV at said ATM counter. The complainant submitted that a person can withdraw maximum of Rs.20,000/- per day, but Rs.15,000/- is maximum amount which can be drawn in single transaction. The complainant’s grievance is the said ATM machine was defective and it does not have proper display on screen and no CCTV in the counter. The complainant alleged that there is defective machine, negligent staff in the branch who are irresponsible about the customers. Due to all reasons she was unable to get her hard earned money. Hence, she approached this forum seeking direction to OP to remit amount of Rs.25,000/- debited from her account. She is also claiming Rs.15,000/- for hardship and mental agony and other relief.
3. Notice sent to Op through RPAD which was duly served on Op. OP appeared through his counsel and filed his statement of objection. Op admitted that complainant has an account in their branch bearing no. 117510125828 and subsequently she obtained ATM card bearing no. 4214581175142051. Also admitted that she had tried for withdrawal of amount in excess of Rs.25,000/- at 20.21 pm which was declined with an advice to enter lesser amount. Op denied all the allegations made against him by the complainant that there is deficiency in service and defective machine installed at Shantinagar ATM counter. Op contended that after verification with staff and personnel of bank, noticed that the complainant has withdrew money of Rs.25,000/-and next transaction for RS.15,000/- was declined due to the maximum withdrawal per day has reached in the first transaction only. OP submitted that there is no deficiency in service. Therefore Op prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed by the complainant since false complaint is filed against Op only to harass him.
4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed her affidavit evidence reproducing what she has stated in her complaint and Mr.Ambaji Navale, a manager of Canara bank, Sampangirama Nagar has filed an affidavit of Op, reproducing what they have stated in their version. The complainant filed certain documents along with her complaint, i.e. Copy of bank statement, copies of email correspondences, copies of slips obtained after ATM transaction, copy of acknowledgement issued by police station, copy of transaction statement of particular ATM counter, circular of bank dated 19/11/2011, ATM report of Canara bank, dated 16/2/12, original slips received at ATM counter. Along with version Op has produced certain documents which are produced by the complainant along with complaint and also produced the transactions happened in Shanthinagar ATM on 15/2/2012, ATM report of 14/2/2012, 15/2/2012, 16/2/2012 and 17/2/2012, Email correspondences to avail technical assistance to sort out the dispute. Heard the arguments of complainant who is in person and counsel for Op and perused the records.
5. On the above materials, following points arise for determination as under:
1. Whether the complainant has proved that the Op has caused deficiency in his service by debitting the amount illegally?
2. To what relief the complainants are entitled to?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: See the Final order
REASONS
7. Answer on Point No.1: After going through the contention of the complainant, there is no dispute between the parties regarding holding account in Op’s bank and availing the ATM facility. As usual the complainant tried to withdraw Rs.25,000/- from her account through ATM Shantinagar counter which was required for the purpose of remitting it for her son’s college fees on 15/2/2012 at 8:22 p.m. As per her oral arguments, due to the urgent requirement of money she has drawn it from provident fund account. Her grievance is when she tried to withdraw Rs.25,000/-, she hasn’t received the amount and slip but the amount of RS.25,000/- is debited from her account. Therefore her allegation is that the Canara Bank ATM machine installed at Shantinagar, BMTC bus stand is defective. The Ops are deficient in their service in not maintaining the machine properly and making the public put into trouble. Immediately on next day i.e. on 16/2/2012 she made complaint to the Op regarding unsuccessful transaction and waited for their reply or remittance inspite of regular follow ups. But Op’s contention is the transaction made by the complainant on 15/2/2012 at 8.22 p.m was successful and she received Rs.25,000/-.
8. On perusal of documents produced by the complainant and the transaction list of entire day produced by Op, we found that there are several discrepancies in the entries and transactions as well. Though the machine was configured with Rs 100 denominations, several transactions who tried to withdraw Rs. 100/-, 200/- 300/- such transactions are declined. Like wise we also observed that two transactions are made to withdraw Rs. 15,000/-, for them it is endorsed as “Enter lesser amount”. Rs.15,000/- was highest amount tried to withdraw from the said ATM machine on 15/2/2012 that too not released. When it is endorsed as “Enter lesser amount” there is no question of withdrawing Rs 25000/- from particular ATM machine. We can believe the statement of the complainant regarding the withdrawal, and that statement goes to show that no one has withdrawn Rs.25,000/- on 15/2/2012 and even Rs.15,000/- has been rejected as “Enter lesser amount” Hence, the transaction of the complainant has become unsuccessful as alleged by the complainant.
9. The Op bank has produced circular no 340/2011 dated 19/11/2011 being material document. In that circular it is mentioned that cash withdrawal from ATM limit per day increased to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.20,000/-. Also mentioned as follows;
1) The ATM machine dispenses cash in the following manner:
a) It dispenses first 5 notes in 100 denominations
b) Next 1 note will be in 500 denominations
c) Subsequent notes will be in 1000 denomination in case ATM is configured for Rs.1000/- otherwise in 500 denominations.
d) If the ATM is configured for Rs. 100 and Rs.500 then the customer can withdraw the amount in two times.
e) If the ATM is configured for Rs. 100, Rs.500, and Rs 1000/- then the customer can withdraw the amount at a time.
Clause 11) Customer should bring to the notice of Canara bank, the discrepancies, if any within 7 days from the date of transaction.
10. The maximum limit of withdrawal is raised to Rs.25000/- which has been proved by the Op by producing the document. They have to prove regarding the transaction of the complainant on 15/2/2012 was successful or not.
11. OP has produced document regarding the ATM report from 14/2/2012 to 17/2/2012 which clearly exhibits that the Op bank has not configured Rs1000 denominations on all above mentioned dates. It means that the complainant might have received only Rs100 and Rs 500 denominations. The particular ATM is capable of dispensing 50 pieces of notes at a time irrespective of Rs.500/- or Rs 100/-. Only possibility of dispensing 50 notes of Rs.500/- denomination only to get Rs.25000/-. We have gone through the entire entries of transactions made on 15/2/2012, and the email correspondence between the bank officials and out source engineer dated 3/3/2012 for seeking clarification regarding few transactions. Out of which, Op obtained clarification about transaction sequence no 2982 which was made on 12/2/2012 which is pertaining to the complainant, the present transaction was successful transaction as per the report. Since Op obtained clarification about the transactions of 12/2/2012 instead of transaction of 15/2/2012 which is in dispute, and that document does not show any clear picture about the transaction. Also considering the transaction of Rs 15,000/- were declined on the ground of “Enter lesser amount” on that day and in the other document produced by Op and contention taken in the statement of objection filed by the Op as particular transaction was successful are contradictory. Hence, the said documents of OP will not support the contention of the Op.
12. Considering the submission of the complainant that the display on the monitor of ATM machine was not clear, She entered the amount for the first instance for Rs.250000/- in place of Rs.25000/-. The machine endorsed with “enter lesser amount”. Then she tried for actual amount (Rs.25,000/-) she wanted to draw, which is transaction in question as unsuccessful. When she did not receive amount and slip, for that she tried for another transaction for Rs15000/- then she received slip as “daily withdrawal limit reached”, she can not draw further.
13. Immediately she complained to the Bank on 16/2/2012, one or the other reason Op bank dragged the matter without giving any reply in writing with regard to the transaction or reversion of amount. Mean time she has been advised to register case before jurisdictional police. Accordingly she filed complaint before Wilson garden police. Even after several follow ups, Op started gathering clarification. After obtaining clarification from service engineer, Op neither reverted the debited amount nor took trouble to inform the same to the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op. Though the complainant complained about unsuccessful transaction of Rs 25000/- Op failed to revert it. After going thorough the documents produced by complainant and OP, there are several discrepancies found in the other transactions of a day.
14. Therefore, machine installed at Shantinagar BMTC Bus stand is defective and it is not maintained properly. May be so many public might have faced such problem and inconvenience. But all may not approach the forum to redress their grievance due to many reasons. The complainant is the only customer of Op who visited the said ATM came before the forum seeking solution for her problem. The maintenance of machine in proper condition is the duty of Op and installation of CC camera is very much essential to trace out such deputes. Hence, Op is liable to pay Rs25,000/- to the complainant with compensation. Accordingly, we answer this point in a affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Complaint is allowed.
OP is directed to pay Rs 25,000=00 (Rs.Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of transaction i.e. 15-2-2012 till it is realized.
OP shall pay Rs.2,000=00 (Rs.Two thousand only) towards cost.
OP is directed to pay the said amount within stipulated period to the complainant, later, OP shall recover the said amount from the concerned official, who has failed to maintain the machine properly upto date.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 17th October 2012.
Member Member President
