Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/877

Mr. B. N. Manjunath S/o. late B.V. Narayana Rao Aged about 63 Years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Karur Vysya Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Prashanth

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 14.05.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 28.11.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.877/2014

DATED THIS THE 28^TH NOVEMBER OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Mr.B.N.Manjunath

S/o late B.V.Narayana Rao,

aged about 63 years,

No.63, Ashwini,

8^th main, Bikasipura,

Subramanyapura post, Bengaluru-61.

By Adv.Sri.Ashok Patil

and Associates   

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

The Manager,

Karur Vysya Bank,

no.253, 3^rd main road,

8^th cross, Isro layout,

Bengaluru-78.

By Adv.Sri.Thejas Rai and

Smt.Savitha Shetty    

ORDER

SRI.SURESH.D, MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) under Sec.12 of CP Act praying to pass an order directing the Op to pay compensation worth Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty thousand only) to the Complainant and further sought direction against the Op to pay Rs.100/- per day as per the RBI notification dtd.27.05.2011 from the date of failure to re-credit the amount to the Complainant after receiving of complaint within 7 days.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

That the Complainant on 23.11.2013 at about 12.27 pm. wanted to draw the money from ATM counter which is attached to the Op’s bank i.e. Karur Vysya Bank after inserting debit card, entered the pass word and after entering the amount of Rs.10,000/-, the ATM screen shown message that ‘processing’ and after this message again screen showed the message that ‘YOU CAN COLLECT THE CASH’ but unfortunately no money came out of the machine and Complainant called the security guard that what is problem with the machine but the security guard did not respond properly. Then the Complainant tried another machine at 12.30 pm. he successfully collected Rs.10,000/- cash from another ATM machine. But pass book is showing the 2 withdrawal transaction i.e. Rs.10,000/- & Rs.10,000/-. The said bank debited the total amount of Rs.20,000/- to his account on the same day including the first transaction for he had not at all collected the money from ATM machine. The Complainant submitted ATM claim form for necessary redressal on 24.11.2013. But there was no response from the bank. Thereafter the Complainant issued a detailed letter dtd.11.03.2014 by addressing the Branch Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, Isro layout branch, Bengaluru and also sent email to sort out the issue. But bank has replied to the mail stating that they are not liable for any financial loss. Later Complainant has also requested by issuing letter to the Op on 11.03.2014 and on 25.03.2014. Same were served on the Op, but the Op has not bothered to reply the same nor paid the amount.

3. Finally, the Complainant requested the bank to provide CC Tv footage, in response, the bank has given the CC Tv images. After seeing the images, Complainant expressed about his doubt that the lady who entered the ATM machine might have been taken the money after the Complainant left from the ATM. After due enquiry, the lady agreed the fact that she had taken the amount of Rs.10,000/- and she returned the amount to the bank and the Op bank paid Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant. The Op bank failed to settle the amount within 7 days from the date of complaint. Hence the Complainant is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.100/- per day which must be calculated from 01.01.2013 to till the date of settlement. The Complainant has issued the letter to the Bank Manager, Karur Vysya Bank dtd.24.04.2014 and requested the Bank Manager to pay the compensation as per RBI notification dtd.27.05.2011. But the bank has refused to pay the compensation. They adopted unfair practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

4. After service of the notice, Op has appeared through his counsel and filed version contending interalia as under:  

In reply to the para 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 & 8 it is submitted, being matter record, no specific reply made herein. Further contended and gave reply to para 4 and it is submitted that the averments made in this para are contradictory to the para 10. In fact the Complainant with drawn a sum of Rs.10,000/- each by two transaction one is at 12.29 pm and another is 23.11.2013. Hence the question of 2 machines does not arise. According to own statement of the complaint in para 10 are lady entered after the Complainant left ATM room and she has taken the money and returned to the Complainant. Hence it is successful transaction. Further in reply to para 6 of the complaint, whenever the Complainant approached the bank, the bank cooperated and clarified all doubts, then in reply the averments at para 9 are not correct.

5. In reply to para 10 & 11, it is submitted that it is the duty of the Complainant to wait till the transaction is completed and cash collected before leaving the ATM room and also should not allow anyone else inside the ATM room. Hence as per para 10 no deficiency of service on the part of Op is made out. Hence the Complainant is not entitled to any compensation and the averments made in para 11 to 17 are not applicable and the same are not correct and hence denied. Therefore it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

6. So from the averments of the complaint of the Complainant and version of the Op, the following points arise for our consideration:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Op is negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Op in not settling the claim amount within reasonable time as stated in the complaint ?
2. If Point no.2 is answered in affirmative, what relief the Complainant is entitled to ?
3. What order ?

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

Point no.1: In the Negative

Point no.2: In view of the negative findings on the point no.1, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint.   

Point no.3: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

          8. Point no.1: So as to prove the case, the Complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence reiterated the same as in the complaint and produced documents in support of his case. On the other hand, one Sri.A.Vishwanadham, power of attorney holder of the Op bank has filed his affidavit by way of evidence, produced one document along with version. Heard the arguments and we have gone through the documentary evidence of both sides in between the lines.

          9. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is an account holder of Karur Vysya Bank. He holds pass book which is marked as Ex-A1 and also ATM card for the same, as such, he is a consumer under Sec.2(1)d of CP Act. The Complainant wanted to withdraw money from the ATM on 23.11.2013 which is attached to the Op’s bank after inserting debit card bearing no.4043 2213 1314 1551, he entered the password and the amount of Rs.10,000/-, after completion of process, the ATM screen showed the message that ‘YOU CAN COLLECT THE CASH’. Unfortunately no money came out of the machine and also no response from the security guard of ATM. The Complainant tried another machine to withdraw the money of Rs.10,000/- at 12.30 pm., on same day wherein he got cash from the ATM successfully. But the pass book was showing two withdrawal transactions i.e. Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/-. Hence Op bank debited the total amount of Rs.20,000/-. So, the Complainant has raised his grievance that the first transaction was not successful, though the amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited, this becomes of unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of Op bank. Further the Complainant has filed the ATM claim form on 24.11.2013, the same has been marked as Ex-A3. Thereafter he sent detailed letter dtd.11.03.2013 to Op bank explaining the issue and also sent a mail to

10. In view of above documents it seems that the Complainant agrees in para 10 of the complaint and para 7 of his affidavit evidence that after due enquiry they lady who was taken the money from the ATM machine after the Complainant left the ATM room has returned and in turn the Op bank has paid Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant on 19.04.2014.  Though the Complainant has grievance that the issue was not resolved as early as possible within the stipulated time for which he sought compensation for the delay caused in resolving the issue cannot be looked in to at this juncture as discussed below.

11. The Op asserts that there is no question of deficiency of service on their part. It is the only by the negligence act of the Complainant by operating ATM card no. No patience for him and it is irresponsibility of the Complainant. Further states that according to own statement of the Complainant in para 10 are that a lady entered after the Complainant left, has taken the money. It clearly goes to show that the ATM machine was in working condition. Hence it is a successful transaction. There is no deficiency of service. Further the Op submits that the Op bank was fully co-operated with complaint and clarified all the doubts raised by the Complainant which can be seen that the admissions given by the Complainant in providing video footage. It is the duty of every ATM card holder to wait till the transaction be completed and before leaving the ATM room and should not allow anyone else inside the ATM room. And all material facts which are required to the Complainant have been furnished on various occasions in time. However, the intention of the Complainant is that to get financial benefits from his own mistakes.

          12. So looking in to the oral and documentary evidence of the Op and compare the same with material evidence of the Complainant, it is vivid and clear that out of the two transactions made on 23.11.2013, the process of first transaction reveals that after insertion of the card in ATM machine, the processing of transaction was started and the ATM machine showed information on the screen that ‘YOU CAN COLLECT THE CASH’. Unfortunately, even after showing information in respect of collection of cash, the Complainant did not wait up to cash come out from the ATM machine. If the Complainant would have been waited for some time, the present problem would not have been arisen at all. So, the reasons for not getting cash has been arisen only due to mistake of facts on the part of the Complainant. Under the circumstances it is not just and proper for us to cast the burden on the Op’s shoulder as the alleged negligence has no legs to stand. Further we noticed from the records that the lady who was entered to the ATM room, after Complainant left, had collected the cash of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM machine, the said amount relates to the last transaction made by the Complainant. It makes us clear that the ATM machine was functioning accurately. So the allegations in respect of defects in ATM machine does not survive. Further negligence on the part of Op is also not sustainable under law and also on the facts and circumstances of the case. After going through the case, we have observed that the Op bank conducted due enquiry after getting CC Tv footage in respect of disputed transaction. Thereafter the truth was come out that one lady took the amount of Rs.10,000/- from ATM has been traced out. Thereafter she returned the said amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Op bank. In turn the Op bank gave the same to the Complainant. Wherein it seems that each and every process of bank takes certain time to resolve the issue. Hence Op took some time to get clarification from the available materials in respect of the alleged transaction. The said time for the process taken cannot be presumed as intentional one but it is bonafide. So the allegations made by the Complainant against the Op in respect of delay in taking up the issue does not hold any substance.

          13. We have also observed that there is no monetary loss caused to the Complainant. It is also known fact that the financial institutions are working not only for the profit motive but also they work in the interest of public. Hence if any reasonable delay occurred during course of process to resolve the problem, such delay should not be construed as negligence. So the document Ex-A6 dtd.27.05.2011 produced by the Complainant does not apply to the present set of facts. Since there is no any laxity on the part of Op and the Op has secured the said lady who admitted in respect of taking of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM machine and get it returned to the Complainant. Accordingly our findings in respect of point no.1 in negative.

          14. Point no.2: In view of our findings on the point no.1, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So we answer this point in negative.

          15. Point no.3: In the result for the forgoing reasons we proceed to pass the following:   

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the Complainant u/s 12 of the CP Act is dismissed.

2. Looking to the circumstances of this case, we direct both parties to bear their own cost.   

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 28^th November of 2017).

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.B.N.Manjunath, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s

by way of affidavit:

Sri.Viswanadham, who being the Manager of Op was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s