BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    04^th DAY OF APRIL 2019

O R D E R

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct OPs to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- being illegally deducted amount from the account of the complainant and also compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

That on 19.08.2014 in the BMTC Bus stop at Bangalore complainant withdraw an amount of Rs.500/- from the ATM machine which has been installed in the said bus stand but in his account an amount of Rs.10,000/- shown as deducted.  In this context he never received any slip and no message to his mobile.  He never tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/-.  In this context he talks with the Bank Manager.  According to his directions, he approached the helpline and filed the complaint.  Thereafter he has issued the message stating that complaint is not resolved.  Hence complainant prayed for allowing the complaint.

3. On receipt of notice, OPs.1 & 2 did appear through the counsel.  Though the notice was served on OP-3 did not appear.  Hence OP-3 placed ex-parte.  OP-1 is the Manager of Karnataka Bank.  OP-2 is the Manager of State Bank of India who files the separate version.

The sum and substance of the version filed by OP-1 is that:

The complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- which has been deducted from his account.  The detailed particulars are mentioned at para.10 reads as under:

10. Accordingly, in the instant case with reference to above complaint, the card holder had stated that he has done only a single transaction of Rs.500/- in Karnataka Bank ATM, but an amount of Rs.10,000/- was deducted from his SBI account.  But, the records show that 4 transactions (3 Cash Withdrawals + 1 Balance Enquiry) were performed on 19.08.14 from three KBL ATMs (KBL18189, KBL18164 & KBL18155, all in same location)

The sequence of transactions:

The above transactions except R.R No.835974 (automatically reversed to the customer’s account) are successful as per the EJ & switch and there is no excess cash pertaining to these transactions.  Further as per the records there was no excess cash found in the ATM centre of OP-1 on 19.08.2014 pertaining to the said alleged unsuccessful transaction.  The statement of account pertaining to the opening balance in the ATM and the closing balance in the ATM tallies/matches and there was no excess amount found in the said ATM.  If at all withdrawal of the amount as alleged by the complainant was unsuccessful, then there should have been excess amount found in the ATM, but there is no excess amount found in the said ATM.  Hence the allegations made by the complainant is baseless.  If the unsuccessful transaction was brought to the notice of the OP-1 at the earliest of the time, certainly the OP could have taken steps to restore the CCTV footage with regard to the alleged unsuccessful transaction.  Hence on this ground and other grounds OP-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Version filed by OP-2 is also similar to that of OP-1.  OP-2 has specifically stated that the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- is successful which has been debited from his account.  Further Bank has issued a Debit Card with secret pin to the complainant.  The pin code is like a password and since pin code is secret code that will be known to ATM card holder only i.e., to the complainant.  Without using the correct PIN, ATM will not dispense the money, therefore the complainant has used the ATM with correct PIN and taken the money hence there is no cause of action to deal with the matter to this Forum.  Hence on this ground and other grounds OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. 

5. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint the complainant submitted his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  Smt.Nirmala T.N, Senior Manager of OP-1 Bank submitted evidence by way of affidavit.  On behalf of OP-2 one Sri.Satish Kulkarni, submitted evidence by way of affidavit.  Complainant, OP-1 and OP-2 have produced certain documents.  Complainant, OP-1 and OP-2 have submitted written arguments.  We have also heard oral arguments.

6. The points that arise for our consideration are:

        7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8. Point No.1:- We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as version filed by OPs.1 & 2.  The grievance of the complainant is that, he has only withdraw an amount of Rs.500/- but not an amount of Rs.10,000/-.  In this context, he has filed online complaint which is not materialized hence he prayed for an amount of Rs.10,000/- being illegally debited from his account and an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and cost of litigation.  OPs.1 & 2 seriously contested the matter as to how an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn by complainant from his debit card in the ATM machine situated in the BMTC Bus stop.  In this context, the detailed particulars are given in para.7 to 12 of its version reads thus:

“7. The ATM, logs of all activities performed in it and it is called as an Electronic Journal (EJ) or Journal Print (JP).  Further, the log shows the status of each transaction and the same is also communicated to the Switch.  The transaction with a response code 00, confirms the transaction to be successful (i.e. Cash Successfully Dispensed).  In case of any error during the transaction, the same is shown in the EJ.

8.  In case of a dispute, the card holder has to raise a claim with the card issuing bank (i.e the account holding bank) and in the instant case it is 2^nd opposite party, then the Bank would in turn raise a charge-back through the dispute management system (DMS) provided by NPCI.

9. On receipt of the chargeback, we would check the status of the transaction as per EJ, Switch and also check for any excess cash available and this is the procedure adopted in all ATM related disputes.

10. Accordingly, in the instant case with reference to above complaint, the card holder had stated that he has done only a single transaction of Rs.500/- in Karnataka Bank ATM, but an amount of Rs.10,000/- was deducted from his SBI account.  But, the records show that 4 transactions (3 Cash Withdrawals + 1 Balance Enquiry) were performed on 19.08.14 from three KBL ATMs (KBL18189, KBL18164 & KBL18155, all in same location)

The sequence of transactions:

11.  All the above transactions except R.R No.835974 (automatically reversed to the customer’s account) are successful as per the EJ & Switch and there is no excess cash pertaining to these transactions. 

12.  That as per the records there was no excess cash found in the ATM Centre of this Opposite Party on 19.08.2014 pertaining to the said alleged unsuccessful transaction.  The statement of account pertaining to the opening balance in the ATM and the closing balance in the ATM tallies/matches and there was no excess amount found in the said ATM.  If at all withdrawal of the amount as alleged by the complainant was unsuccessful, then there should have been excess amount found in the ATM, but there is no excess amount found in the said ATM, hence the allegations made by the complaint are hereby specifically denied as false”. 

9. If the above contention taken by the OPs.1 & 2 is strictly construed the complainant has tested with regard to available balance then withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- successful and withdrawal of Rs.500/- failed and reversed and Rs.500/- withdrawal successful.  When the withdrawal is successful he cannot blame the Bank that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been illegally debited from his account.  In this context the OPs have placed the reliance on one of the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.3182/2008 in the case of State Bank of India Vs. K.K Bhalla, wherein it is held that, bank is not liable to pay any compensation or refund of money for the successful transaction.  In this view of the matter we come to the conclusion that, the complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly we answered point No.1.

          10. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits.  Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 04^th day of April 2019)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln*

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 17.11.2015.

                      Sri.H.P Desai,

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party-1 16.01.2016.

Smt.Nirmala T.N.

Document produced by the Opposite party-1.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party-2 10.02.2016.

Sri.Satish Kulkarni.

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

Vln*