BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM (Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
PRESENT: Sri Y. Aravinda Reddy, Spl Judge for SCs & STs (POA) Act cum – V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge / FAC President
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR) Male Member
Friday, the 15th day of June, 2012
C.C. No. 09 of 2012
Between:
Sri K. Govinda Rajulu,
Junior Lecturer,
Govt. Junior College (Girls),
Sangareddy, Medak District. ….Complainant
And
1) The Manager,
SBH Branch Manager,
Sangareddy, Medak District.
2) The Manager,
SBH Branch Nizampet,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad,
Rangareddy District. …..Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 30.04.2012 in the presence of complainant in person and Sri B. Gouri Reddy, Advocate for Opposite party No.1 and 2, and heard the arguments of opposite parties, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging that he is an account holder of opposite party No. 2 and also having Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card facility. On 02.12.2011, he required money to operate the ATM card for Rs. 15,000/- but received Rs.8,000/- only out of Rs. 15,000/- he did not receive Rs. 7,000/-on counting. The statement shows Rs. 15,000/- was debited. He approached opposite party No. 1 and informed them but they only asked him to approach opposite party No. 2. When the complainant lodged a complaint to the opposite party No. 2 registered the complaint and asked to wait for 20 days. He approached the opposite party No. 2, the bank officer said that they had not received any answer from opposite party No. 1. Bank’s branch officer and asked to contact Satyanaraya (opposite party No. 1) and seek redressal. When the complainant contacted the said Satyanarayana he issued a statement showing no excess amount with them on 02.12.2011. Hence the present complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs.
2. Opposite parties no. 1 & 2 filed their version alleging that the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. The complainant is the savings account holder No. 00062194791939 in opposite party No. 2 and he was provided ATM card No. 504435210230005564. On 12.02.2011 the complainant vide transaction No. 6362 used his ATM Card for Rs. 15,000/- in the premises of SBH Branch Sanagareddy. As per ATM journal and ATM log book the above transaction was successful and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- withdrawn and the same is debited to his account. There is no error reported. Further there is no excess nor is any amount credited to sundry deposit account on that day. The complainant lodged a complaint before the opposite parties stating that he has received Rs. 8,000/- out of Rs. 15,000/-, but he did not receive Rs. 7,000/- on counting. The bank enquired / investigated his request but there was nothing found in error/excess cash. The material available with the bank found that the transaction was successful and there is no amount left in the ATM machine. Therefore the complaint is put to strict proof of the same.
3. Complainant filed his complaint and submitted documents but they are not marked. Despite several adjournments (6) the complainant never filed his chief affidavit nor did he make any further representations, posted for order. Opposite party filed their documents and made their oral submission.
4. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and if so is the complainant entitled to any relief?
Point:
It is not in dispute that the complainant is having an account with opposite party No. 2 bank and ATM facility with the opposite parties ATM. The dispute is that the complainant received Rs. 8,000/- only as against Rs. 15,000/-. He claims that he has to receive another Rs. 7,000/- more. He has only submitted two documents and nothing discrepancy in the account. In the bank statement as against the No. 6362 the withdrawal amount is shown as Rs. 15,000/- dt.12.02.2011 time 9:48 a.m. and in the statements of accounts also the amount is shown as Rs. 15,000/-.
Moreover the complainant has not mentioned any details in his complaint. He does not give card Number or Account Number. Merely lodging a complaint saying that he received less amount while using the ATM card is not sufficient evidence. He has never made the effort to approach the forum and file necessary documents. The ATM slip that was issued on that particular day was not filed. The bank statements support the opposite parties and not the complainant. It is very difficult to adjudicate this matter with no proper evidence.
There is a responsibility on the opposite parties to take care of the ATM transactions. The number of complaints against ATM transactions by clients is only increasing day by day. All the information is available with the opposite parties – the denomination of notes that were inserted into the ATM and number of notes dispensed and the number that remain in the ATM at the time of placing money on the succeeding day. No details regarding number of notes dispensed by the machine is furnished. Care must be exercised by the opposite parties. Hence for lack of proper documentary evidence the complaint is dismissed.
5. In the result the complaint is dismissed, no costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 15th day of June, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
FAC PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMER
WITNESS EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
-NIL- -NIL-
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
-Nil- -Nil-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
FAC PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMER
Copy to
1) The Complainant
2) The Opposite parties
3) Spare copy
