Karnataka

Kolar

CC/144/2023

K.N.Chandappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank - Opp.Party(s)

19 Feb 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 21/11/2023

Date of Order: 19/02/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:19^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:144/2023

Sri. K.N. Chandrappa.

S/o Nachappa,

Aged about 50 years,

R/at Kithandur Village,

Sugutur Hobli,

Kolar Taluk.

(Rep. by Sri. M.P. Narayanaswamy, Advocate) ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

 

1. The Manager,

Karnataka Gramina Bank,

  Sugutur Branch,

  Kolar Taluk.

  (Rep. by Sri. S. Nandeesh, Advocate)

 

 

2. The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Srinivasapura Branch,

Srinivasapura,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri. N.G. Vasudev Moorthy, Advocate)

            

3. The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Chintamani Branch,

Chintamani Town,

Chikkaballapura District.

(Exparte)                                                   ……Opposite Parties.                                                                   

         

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act against the OPs alleging deficiency in service and thereon seeking direction to the OPs bank to refund the amount of Rs.6,500/- along with interest @ 18% P.a from the date of amount deducted from the complainant account to the complainant.

 

2.   The facts in brief is that, the complainant is the customer of the OP.No.1 Bank i.e Karnataka Gramin Bank, Sugatur Branch and maintaining the account in the said bank bearing account No.10829101015823 and having the facility of ATM Card.  It is alleged that, on 16/06/2022 complainant visited Canara Bank ATM counter with an intention to draw an amount of Rs.6,500/- but the amount is not disbursed whereas, endorsement stating that, transaction is successful and the amount is deducted from his account maintained in the OP.No.1 Bank.  Further against the not disburse of the amount from the above said ATM counter and deducting the amount from his account and thereby complainant lodged the complaint with his Bank and also visited the OP.No.2&3 branch and requested many times about the non-receiving of the amount from the alleged transaction.  Further it is stated that, when the OPs not reacted to the demand of the complainant and the complainant got issued the legal notice to the OPs Bank but OPs Bank failed to credit the amount to his account.  Further complainant seeking direction to OP.No.2 & 3 Bank to produce CCTV footage of alleged transaction.  Further when the OPs failed to credit the amount of Rs.6,500/-to the complainant’s account which leads to the present complaint.

 

3. Upon admission of the complaint and on issuance of notice OP.No.1 & 3 failed to appear before this Commission and accordingly OP.No.1 & 3 are placed exparte.  However OP.No.2 filed its version.

 

4.  In the version of OP.No.2 it is contended that, the complainant with an intention to withdraw the amount of Rs.6,500/- from the Canara Bank ATM counter on 16/06/2022 though amount is not disbursed but the transaction was successful and the amount is debited from his account and thereon complainant given the requisition to his Bank and all these averments denied as false and incorrect.  It is contended that, OP.No.2 Bank has not received any information nor made any arrangements for payment of the amount deducted from the complainant account.  Further OP.No.2 Bank also denied the issuance and serving of the legal notice by the complainant.  Further contended that, there is no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file this complaint.  It is contended that, any claim of the ATM complaint should be registered with customer home bank branch and then complaint registered with customer home bank branch will be sent to Canara Bank reconciliation department at circle/head, based on the complaint after verification of transaction in ATM.  The reconciliation department will transferred back the money to customer banks concerned department if they found transaction is incomplete.  Further contended that, on impleading OP.No.2 Bank is only to harm and harass and thereon contended that, complaint is not maintainable.  Further contended that, complaint filed earlier and the same was by filing the memo as withdrawn not pressed and also contended that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.2 Bank and the above said grounds prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant and the OP.No.2 both the parties filed their affidavit evidence.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.1 to 3 against the deducting the amount of Rs.6,500/- from his account against the Non-disbursal of the amount from the OP.No.2 ATM counter on 16/06/2022?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What order?

We have heard the arguments of the parties.

Our answers to the above points as under:-

1. Point No.(1)& (2):-  Are in the partly Affirmative.
2. Point No.(3):-          As per the final orders

                               For the following.

 

5299419885.  

7. Point No.(1) & (2):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that, these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake of brevity, these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

8. It is an undisputed facts that, the complainant is the customer of the OP.No.1 Bank i.e Karnataka Gramin Bank, Sugatur Branch and maintaining the account in the said bank bearing account No.10829101015823 and having the facility of ATM Card. 

 

9. It is worth to note that, complaint is the customer of the OP.No.1 Bank, due to core Banking and ATM facility connected to all banks, the complainant also the customers to all those banks providing ATM service to all the customers of the OP.No.1 Bank and thereon complainant is also the customer of the OP.No.2 Bank, hence their exists privity of contract between the parties.

 

10. It is also not in dispute that, on 16/06/2022 complainant visited Canara Bank ATM counter with an intention to draw an amount of Rs.6,500/- but the amount is not disbursed whereas, endorsement stating that, transaction is successful and the amount is deducted from his account maintained in the OP.No.1 Bank.

 

11. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant that, the complainant filed affidavit evidence and on perusal of the same it discloses that, complainant deposed all those facts averred in his complaint/petition.

 

12.  It is noteworthy to mention that, regarding non-disbursement of the amount against the alleged ATM transaction at the Canara Bank and the complainant got issued the legal notice wherein which he was called upon the OPs bank to refund the amount against the non-disbursal of the amount in respect of the ATM transaction in question. 

 

Per contra, OP.No.1 Bank replied the notice and asked the complainant to put to strict proof of the ATM transactions regarding non-payment of ATM amount, further informed the complainant about raising the complaint in this regard in DBSCOM No.10829ATM223533 dated: 16/06/2022 and issued endorsement to the complainant is admitted further informed that, the OP.No.1 Bank they approached the Canara Bank through the email and got information to the said account number maintained by the complainant shows that, the amount in question with the ATM counter transaction dated: 16/06/2022 is successful and hence OP.No.1 Bank contended that, they are not responsible.

 

13. Whereas, the OP.No.2 Bank denied the issuance and serving of the legal notice by the complainant.  Further it is contended that, the complainant with an intention to withdraw the amount of Rs.6,500/- from the Canara Bank ATM counter on 16/06/2022 though amount is not disbursed but the transaction was successful and the amount is debited from his account and thereon complainant given the requisition to his Bank and all these averments denied as false and incorrect.

The crux of the matter is to consider in the light of the evidence placed on record whether the amount in respect of ATM transaction dated: 16/06/2022 done by the complainant at the OP.No.2 ATM centre and the disburse of the amount.  Admittedly as per the entries in the passbook statements reflects that, amount of Rs.6,500/- deducted from the account of the complainant maintained by the OP.No.1 Bank.  The allegation of the complainant is that, amount is not disbursed from the ATM counter of the OP.No.2 Bank but deducted from his account.

14.  The Bank being the public institution, it comes under the service sector and the complainant is a customer to the OPs Bank and it is the duty of the banks to provide better service.  That the complainant deposed in his evidence that, the OP.No.2 Bank not produced any CC Camera footage CD on the date of transaction to ascertain the reality.  It is the very important duty of the Banks who are offering the facility of ATM counters for smooth transactions and to secure the interest of its customers, it is the bounden duty of the banks to install CCTV camera and to avoid whenever there is mischief played by the fraudulent or any fraudulent transactions, when the allegation of the complainant is that, when the amount was not disbursed from the ATM counter against his transaction, it is the duty of the Bank being a service provider and to ensure the credibility of the transaction, OP.No.2 Bank ought to have produced the CCTV footage to shift the grain from the chaff.  Under these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that, it is the duty of the banks to install CCTV footage in every ATM branches and they should ensure recording of day to day financial transactions and not doing the same, it amounts to negligence of their duties.  In this case OP.No.2 failed to produce CCTV footage in order to ensure that amount of Rs.6,500/- disbursed to the complainant on the said date of transaction.

 

15.   Further, we lay our hands to the decision reported in  CPJ 2015 at page 135(NC) in the case of State Bank of India V/s Sansar Chand Kapoor wherein which it is held that, the petitioner bank was deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not making available copy of the aforesaid CTV footage to him, in our opinion when the transaction at ATM counter with an allegation of non-disbursal of amount of Rs.6,500/- and failure to produce CCTV footage by the OP.No.2 & 3 bank to satisfy the credibility of the transaction and hence OP.No.2 & 3 are deficient in their service.  However, on perusal of the evidence on record the role of OP.No.1 is limited and we find no deficiency in service on the part of OP.No.1 Bank.  Further OP.No.2 & 3 are liable to pay Rs.6,500/- to the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.  Accordingly we answered the Point No. (1) & (2) are in the partly affirmative.

 

16. Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No. (1)&(2) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby allowed against OP.No.(2) & (3) with cost and dismissed against OP.No.(1).
2. Further OP.No.(2) & (3) are hereby directed to pay Rs.6,500/- to the complainant account maintained in the OP.No.1 Bank within 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which, OP.No.(2) & (3) are directed to pay interest @ 7.5% P.a from the date of order till its realization.
3. Further OP.No.(2) & (3) are directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
4. Further OP.No.(2) & (3) are directed to comply the directions given in the Sl.No.(2) & (3) within 30 days from the date of order and submit the compliance report within 45 days.
5. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

      (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 19^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024)

 

 

       MEMBER                                PRESIDENT