By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- with 12% interest from 28.04.2012 and 07.05.2012 till payment to the complainant and to pay Rs.100/- per day to the complainant from 28.04.2012 and 07.05.2012 as loss sustained to her till payment and the cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant was an employee in Sulthanate of Oman Health Service Department from 2005 onwards for 7 years. On retirement she got all benefits ie about 2283.98 Riyal and it is credited to her account No.0371014642530015. On 28.04.2012 and 07.05.2012 the complainant tried to withdraw Rs.15,000/- through ATM maintained by the opposite party at Pulpally. But the complainant did not get the money. On the same day, the complainant went to the opposite party bank and made complaint about it. The opposite party promised the complainant to give back the money. On several occasions, the complainant went to the opposite party bank for getting the money but not received the money so far. Hence the complaint.
3. On receipt of the complaint, Notice was issued to opposite party and opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the opposite party contented that there is no negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The opposite party has not retained any amount of the complainant unlawfully in order to make profit. If the complainant produce sufficient documents as required by the opposite party, the opposite party is ready to disburse the said amount by way of DD or pay order to the complainant. The opposite party admitted that the complainant approached the opposite party with a complaint that she did not receive the amount even though the same was debited from her account on two occasions. The complainant has to produce documents from muscat Bank to verify that the amounts are debited in her account. But she did not produce the documents even after repeated demands. So there is no deficiency of service from opposite party.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the
side of opposite party?.
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 and CD is marked as MO1. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1. In the cross-examination of OPW1, OPW1 deposed that the opposite party's bank had tyeup with Muscat Bank and a person can withdraw amount from the account through the ATM. When the opposite party Bank had tyeup with Muscat Bank, the opposite party bank can very well get the details from Muscat Bank by any source. The complainant clearly stated that she had stopped the employment at Muscat Health Department and she had left the country after recording exit visa. On enquiry from India, she understood that the Muscat Bank had closed her account also. So it is not possible her to go again to Muscat and get details. The opposite party Bank can verify her account details with Muscat Bank though the facility available to opposite party Bank. The opposite party Bank had contact with Visa company and so the opposite party bank can get the details through visa company. The case of the complainant is that when the complainant used ATM card in the ATM counter of opposite party Bank to withdraw Rs.15,000/- twice she did not receive the amount. So normally there will be a balance of Rs.30,000/- in the account of the complainant. The opposite party bank can very well ascertain the balance in their account. The non-receipt of money from ATM counter of opposite party Bank is not due to the fault of complainant. As per the version of opposite party bank, the opposite party bank is ready to disburse the amount to the complainant on production of documents from Muscat Bank. The Forum found that it is not practicable for the complainant to produce the documents. The Forum found that the opposite party Bank had not taken serious steps to enquire in to the matter on getting complaint and to disburse the amount to the complainant. The non-disbursement of the amount to the complainant by the opposite party bank amounts to deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party bank is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) to the complainant with 12% interest from 28.04.2012 till payment. The opposite party bank is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party bank shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of March 2015.
Date of Filing:26.04.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Lisamma John. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Shebin Rappai. Branch Manager, SIB Pulpally.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Printout of Text Messages.
A2 Copy of ATM card.
MO1. CD.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
