Date of Filing:14.10.2009<br /> Date of Order: 26.06.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2010<br /> <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 /> COMPLAINT NO: 2392 OF 2009<br /> George K.J.<br /> S/o. Late Joy K.A.<br /> R/at # 421, 2nd A Cross<br /> 3rd Block, 3rd Stage<br /> Basaveshwaranagar<br /> Bengaluru 560 09 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Manager<br /> Canara Bank<br /> Cunningham Road Branch<br /> Bengaluru Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> Complainant is a customer of opposite party bank having S.B. A/c and taken debit card service No. 4214580431005912. On 10.05.2009 he visited ATM of Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagar to draw the amount. Totally he had drawn Rs. 20,000/-. He tried to withdraw another Rs. 5,000/- for the 3rd time in the same ATM. The machine could not function and ‘sorry for inconvenience’ report generated. The complainant checked the account balance. He was shocked to notice that the amount which was not drawn also deducted from his account. He appraised the error committed to the opposite party bank. When the default was not rectified he had given written letter on 19.05.2009 to the opposite party. Opposite party directed him to approach head office at M.G. Road. He visited head office. Even though they have not responded and acted negligently. The complainant suffered mental agony. He has caused legal notice. Therefore, the complainant prayed that the opposite party bank be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. <br /> 2. The opposite party filed defence version stating that the ATM cum debit card holder is entitled to avail the cash withdrawal subject to a maximum of Rs. 20,000/- only per day. Complainant had already withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- on 10.05.2009 and he was not permitted to withdraw further sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the same day. Therefore, the complainant was issued with ATM transaction record ‘Sorry for inconvenience. Your transaction exceeds limit’. The opposite party submitted that on the next day i.e. on 11.05.2009 at 8.50 a.m. complainant withdrawn sum of Rs. 5,000/- from ATM of Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagar Branch. As 10.05.2009 was Sunday being a holiday the entries in respect of transactions on 10.05.2009 reflected in the passbook on 11.05.2009. Complainant had suppressed the fact of withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/- on 11.05.2009 at about 8.50 a.m. Opposite party has explained the above facts to the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidences are filed. Respective parties have also filed documents.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? <br /> <br /> 6. The complainant has produced ATM slips. By these slips it is clear that he has withdrawn Rs. 15,000/- on 10.05.2009 at 8.40 from ATM of Bank of India, Basaveshwaranagar. Again on 10.05.2009 at 8.41 a.m. he has withdrawn Rs. 5,000/- from same ATM and entry slip goes to show that on 10.05.2009 at 08.42 a.m. he could not get the amount. The slip shows ‘Sorry for inconvenience. Your transaction exceeds limit’. As per the bank statement Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- and another Rs. 5,000/- was debited in the SB A/c of complainant. In this way totally Rs. 25,000/- was debited. The complainant’s grievance is that he has not received Rs. 5,000/- from ATM even though the bank has deposited Rs. 5,000/- in his account. On the other hand it is the case of the opposite party that the complainant has withdrawn Rs. 5,000/- from Bank of India ATM, Basaveshwaranagar Branch on 11.05.2009 at 8.50 a.m. and this fact has been suppressed by the complainant. The bank has produced transaction list as on 11.05.2009 at Ex. R1. In this document debit card No. of the complainant is shown. The opposite party bank has also produced statement obtained from the Bank of India. From the Bank of India records also complainant’s transaction on 11.05.2009 at 8.50 a.m. shown and this document also shows withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/-. So under these circumstances there appears that totally Rs. 25,000/- was withdrawn from the ATM on 10.05.2009 and on 11.05.2009. As 10.05.2009 was a Sunday, entries in passbook were not made. On 11.05.2009 being Monday working day for the bank all the three entries of withdrawal from ATM have been shown in the passbook of the complainant. From the passbook entry total debit entry is Rs. 25,000/-. So under these circumstances the complainant has not established any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party bank. However, the RBI has constituted Banking Ombudsman for resolution of banking disputes between customers and banks. The complainant is still free to file his complaint before the Banking Ombudsman which is functioning in RBI, Bangalore. The Ombudsman is a proper and competent authority to look into the matter thoroughly and pass appropriate orders in the matter. With this observation the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is dismissed. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />