Date of Filing:13.03.2008<br /> Date of Order:12.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 701 OF 2008<br /> <br /> N. Venkataswamy,<br /> Recovery-II, <br /> Karnataka State Financial Corporation,<br /> Thimmaiah Road,<br /> Bamgalooru-560 052. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Manager,<br /> Canara Bank, <br /> Mahalakshmi Layout,<br /> Bangalore-560 086. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that, he is a S.B A/c holder at Canara Bank, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore. The opposite party Bank have wrongly debited sum of Rs.5,118/- to the S.B A/c. On verification of Pass Book entries it is noticed that there is both debit and credit on 13.1.2008. So, it is clear that, cash was not drawn rather the attempt to draw the cash from ATM failed. Unfortunately, after 5 ½ months, the opposite party Bank had debited Rs.5,000/- on 4/6/2007 and Rs.118/- on 5/6/2007 towards interest due to over draft. Therefore, the complainant requested to direct the opposite party to re-credit the amount to his S.B A/c.,. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party filed defence version stating that, on 13/1/2007 complainant withdrew Rs.5,000/- from the ATM. Due to delay in response the said amount got reversed and credited to the S.B A/c on the same day. The error was subsequently located at the time of reconciliation and rectified by debiting in the parties account on 4th June-2007. The complainant has earlier complained to the office of Banking Ombudsman, Karnataka and Bank submitted proof of the transaction. Ombudsman was convinced that the withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- is a successful transaction and ordered the Bank to pay back Rs.118/- which has been complied with. Complainant has approached this Forum without disclosing the above fact. Therefore, the opposite party Bank requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:-<br /> Whether there was deficiency in service on the part <br /> of the opposite party?<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. I have perused the complaint and documents. The opposite party Bank has produced the complainant lodged by the present complainant to the Ombudsman dated 20/9/2007. The Ombudsman had passed order on 29th November-2007 stating that, ATM transaction of Rs. 5,000/- on 13th January-2007 was successful as evidenced by the JP log and on reconciliation of accounts necessary adjustments were made and as regards recovery amount of Rs.118/- towards overdraft the Bank has been directed to refund the same. In view of this fact the Ombudsman stated that the complaint is treated as attended and disposed of. The complainant while submitting complaint to this Forum has not disclosed the matter taken to Banking Ombudsman, he is not disclosed the order passed by the Banking Ombudsman. Therefore, the complainant has suppressed the material facts in the present complaint. On this count itself the complainant is not entitled for relief from this Forum. The complainant could have disclosed all the matters fairly without suppressing the facts. This Forum is a Forum wherein the matters are being disposed of on equity, justice and good conscience. If the party does not come with true facts and some important material not disclosed in the complaint in that matter the equitable remedy cannot be granted. The opposite party has produced withdrawal transaction slip dated 13/1/2007. Balance enquiry disclosed the amount of Rs.19,228/- and the another withdrawal transaction soon after the balance enquiry disclose withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- and actual balance amount showed is Rs.14,228/-. It is the case of the complainant that the ATM transaction of 13/1/2007 was not a successful transaction and there was no outflow of cash from the ATM. Therefore, the complainant wants that Bank should re-credit Rs.5,000/- to his account. The complainant should have lodged written complaint to the opposite party Bank on the same day or within the reasonable time disclosing that he had not received the cash from the ATM counter. So that could have been of good piece of evidence in support of the case of complainant. The complainant submitted that he has orally complained to the Bank official, but he has not disclosed the name of the Bank official to whom he has complained and there is no attempt on behalf of the complainant to prove that he had orally complained of not receiving the cash from ATM. The complainant has not produced withdrawal slips along with complaint. It is the defence of the opposite party that at the time of reconciliation the error was located and the same was rectified by debiting in the complaint’s account. As per the order of the Banking Ombudsman the Bank has re-credited Rs.118/- to the account of complainant. Therefore, the opposite party Bank has complied with the Banking Ombudsman order. In view of all these facts, it is very difficult to say that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The complainant admittedly an old customer of the opposite party Bank is maintaining account with the opposite party Bank since 1996. So, when this is the case there must be trust and confidence between the customer and the Bank. The opposite party Bank being nationalized Bank, it has no interest if at all there was any error and the amount was not received by the complainant from the ATM counter, the opposite party Bank could have readily accepted the error and re-credited the amount to the account of the complainant. The matter has been thoroughly examined by the Banking Ombudsman and the complainant has been attended. So, under these circumstances it is very difficult for the present Forum to grant any relief to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />