Karnataka

Kolar

CC/21/2016

Kum.Priyanka.B.N - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.C.Chowde Gowda

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 27/04/2016

Date of Order: 22/11/2016

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

 

Dated: 22^nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB…..    MEMBER

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

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 21 OF 2016

Kum. Priyanka B.N,

D/o. Nagesh B.T,

Aged About 21 Years,

R/at: Bhaktharahalli Village,

Sidlagatta Taluk,

Chikkaballapura District.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. S.D.Chowde Gowda, Advocate)                  ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Bhakatharahalli Branch,

Sidlagatta Taluk.

(Placed Ex.parte)

 

2) The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Head Office Nrupathunga Road,

Bangalore-560 001.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. R.A.Mohan, Advocate)                    …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has preferred this complaint Under Sections 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking directions against the OPs to pay Rs.4,800/- along with interest and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and to grant such other reliefs as this Forum may deems fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant is that, she is the account holder of the OP No.1 Bank bearing S.B. Account No.0434108016080.  As the complainant is studying at Mandya and due to her personal expenses and she also intended to purchase books for studies, she tried to withdraw Rs.4,800/- from her account on 01.11.2015 at about 2.30 PM at SBM ATM, V.C. Farm, Mandya.  The said amount has been debited from her account, but not dispensed from the ATM machine.  In this regard she lodged complaint with the OP No.1 Bank and also gave written complainant also, but OP No.1 did not respond for the same.  In this regard complainant had faced several problems due to her financial assistance.  Hence this complaint.

 

(b)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted List of documents as mentioned below:-

(i) Copy of the Pass-Book

(ii) Copy of the representation given by the complainant

 

03.   On issuance of notice to both the OPs from this Forum, OP-1 remained absent and hence OP-1 was placed exparte.  However counsel for OP-2 appeared, but did not file its version. 

 

04.   The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and on behalf of OP-2 Sri.Srinivasulu, Manager of the OP - 2 Bank has submitted his affidavit evidence. 

05.   The brief facts of the affidavit evidence filed by the counsel for the OP-2 is that, the complainant had falsely lodged this complaint against these OPs.  Before lodging this complaint the complainant had approached Ombudsman Court at Bangalore and as per the order of the Ombudsman Court, both Ops are liable to pay Rs.4,800/- (i.e., 50% of the amount was to be paid by each OP) to the complainant.  Accordingly, both Ops have complied the said order by depositing Rs.4,800/- to the complainant’s account on 01.06.2016 and the same was also intimated to the complainant.  These facts were suppressed by the complainant willfully in this complaint.  So contending, OP No.2 prays for dismissal of the present complaint with costs against the complainant.

 

06.   On 23.09.2016 counsel for OP-2 has submitted Memo with statement of accounts for the period from 01.03.2016 to 20.09.2016 pertaining to the complainant’s S.B. Account.

 

07.   Both counsels for complainant and OP-2 have submitted their respective written arguments.

 

08.   Heard arguments as advanced by both the learned counsels appearing for the complainant and as well as OP No.2.

 

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

(A) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2?

(B) What order?

10.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A):-  In the Affirmative

POINT (B):-  As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A):-

11.   It is an admitted fact that, the complainant is studying at Mandya and she is the S.B. Account holder of the OP-1 Bank bearing account No. 0434108016080.  It is also an admitted fact that, on 01.11.2015 at about 02.30 PM at SBM ATM Counter which is situated at V.C. Farm, Mandya, she tried to withdraw Rs.4,800/- from her S.B. Account by using her own ATM Card, but said ATM machine did not dispense the said amount, but however said amount was debited from her account. 

 

12.   Per contra, in the affidavit filed by the OP-2 Bank it has clearly stated that, as per the directions of the Ombudsman Court, Ops have deposited Rs.4,800/- to the complainant’s account on 01.06.2016 and the same was also intimated to the complainant.  Further the OPs have filed a Memo dated: 21.11.2016 stating that, they has received order of the Ombudsmen Court on 30.05.2016 and on 01.06.2016 the said amount of Rs.4,800/- was deposited to the complainant’s account, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  To substantiate this contention Ops have produced copy of the e-mail, but we do not find the exact date of dispatch made by the Ombudsmen Court and also the exact date of receival of the said email copy by the OPs. 

13.   From the above it is clear that, on 01.06.2016 the Ops have refunded Rs.4,800/- to the complainant’s S.B. account, but this payment was made after filing of this complaint on 27.04.2016 before this Forum.  However the complainant being a girl student who is totally dependent on the income of her parents/guardians, for study purpose, when she tried to make withdrawal of Rs.4,800/- from her S.B. Account through ATM Card, non-dispensing of the amount from the ATM Machine though it was debited from her account has caused great hardship to the complainant and caused mental agony also.  Secondly the OPs being a reputed Bank did not pay back the said amount to the complainant’s account till 01.06.2016.  That is after 07 months from the date of incident the Ops have made payment of the said amount to the complainant’s S.B. account.  And for all these days complainant being a girl student might have spent some amount towards travelling expenses and court costs and to that extent the Ops are liable to make good of it.  It is only after the complainant approached this Forum, the Ops woke-up from their deep slumber and have made good the amount and deposited the same on 01.06.2016.  Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of OP Nos.1 & 2.

 

14.   In view of the above discussions we hold that, the OP Nos.1 & 2 both jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant and we direct both OP Nos.1 & 2 to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.

 

POINT (B):

15.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

22.11.2016:-

COMPLAINANT BY SRI.

OP No.1 & 2 BY SRI.

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the present complaint stands Allowed.

 

02.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 both are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.

 

03.   We direct the OPs to comply the above said order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, OPs are liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above awarded amounts from 27.04.2016 being the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

 

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

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 22^nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016)

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                        MEMBER                   PRESIDENT