Kerala

Wayanad

CC/09/165

M J Philip,Madukkayil House, Kalankara, Nenmeni PO, S Battery. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Union Bank of India, S Battery. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2010

ORDER


Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WayanadConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 165
1. M J Philip,Madukkayil House, Kalankara, Nenmeni PO, S Battery.Kerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. The Manager, Union Bank of India, S Battery. Kerala2. The General Manager, Union Bank of India, ATM Division, Transaction Banking Department, Mumbai.MumbaiMumbaiKerala3. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Sulthan Battery.WayanadWayanadKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 30 Apr 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-


 


 

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is an ATM Card holder of the 1st Opposite Party bank. The Complainant was influenced by the lacurative offers of the 1st Opposite Party in possessing an ATM Card. For the purpose of conducting a tour to Velankanny the Complainant deposited Rs.13,000/- in his account and the Complainant tried to withdraw the amount Rs.13,000/- from the Canara Bank ATM outlet at Sulthan Bathery. The transaction was not effected and a slip was issued to the Complainant with a description “transaction declined”. The Complainant could not proceed with pilgrimage tour in the absence of money. The Complaint was launched before the 1st Opposite Party. The request for the reversal of cash was signed and given to the 1st Opposite Party. There was inordinate delay in the reversal of the cash debited from the account of the Complainant. The request of the Complainant to reverse the amount in to his account was not appropriately done by the 1st Opposite Party. There may be an order directing the 1st Opposite Party to compensate the Complainant Rs.50,000/- damages for not despencing the amount through ATM along with cost.


 

2. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties filed version in brief it is as follows:- The complaint itself is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. The ATM which was used for the withdrawal of money by the Complainant was the Canara Bank ATM. The Canara Bank at Sulthan Bathery is not arrayed as a party in this case. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Party had not given any lacurative offers to influence the consumers. The ATM Card issued by the 1st and 2nd Opposite party and account stated in the complaint are correct. The service of the Canara Bank ATM was availed by the Complainant for the withdrawal of the money on 04.08.2009. The declining of the transaction is a rare incident and it may be due to the technical defect of the ATM counter of the Canara Bank. The Canara Bank on the application verified the transaction and Rs.13,000/- was credited back into the account of the Complainant on 21.08.2009. The norms of bank and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India are such that the rectification for the reversal of the amount is to be done within a period of 15 days. The bank employees in all over India were under strike on 06.08.2009 and 07.08.2009 and it was followed by a holiday on 09.08.2009. The amount could be credited on 21.08.2009 into the account of Complainant. The unsuccessful transaction and the claim in respect of that sum was redressed ensuring the best service to the customers. Any delay if resulted it is not due to any deficiency in service of the Opposite Party. The complaint is to be decided in merit it is to be dismissed with cost.


 

3. The supplemented Opposite Party No.3 filed version. The ATM counter has not dispensed the amount only because of mechanical defect. It cannot be alleged as a deficiency in service. The 3rd Opposite Party is an unnecessary part in this case. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.


 

4. The points in consideration are:-

  1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

  2. Relief and cost.


 

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the Complainant and 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. The documents produced are Ext.A1 to A9 and Ext.B1. The Complainant and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 oral testimony was also given in this case. The Complainant has been an account holder in the 1st Opposite Party's bank. Ext.B1 produced by the Opposite Party shows that the Complainant was in continuation of transaction in the 1st Opposite Party bank. Even before 04.08.2009 and the transaction continued even after the unsuccessful transaction of the Complainant from the ATM. It is seen that on 04.08.2009 Rs.13,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the Complainant and again Rs.13,000/- was credited into the Complainant's account by Mumbai ATM cell on 21.08.2009. The ATM counter of Canara Bank was used by the Complainant for the withdrawal of money. According to the Opposite parties and the norms that prevails for unsuccessful withdrawal from the ATM counter are such that the redressal of the grievances are to be made within a prescribed time. The Opposite Party on examination also admitted that in between 04.08.2009 to 21.08.2009 altogether there were three off days. The redressal of the grievances could not be effected only because of the technical problems. The money was on the very same day withdrawal from the account of the Complainant in the 1st Opposite Party's Bank, but the disbursement of the amount was not evented. On perusal of the documents it is seen that the Opposite Parties acted on request and the amount was reversed into the account of the Complainant within the sanctioned period according to the guidelines and norms of the bank. The contention of the Complainant that the withdrawal of the money was for pilgrimage to Velankanny is also not supported by any evidence. We are in the opinion that the delay in reversal of the debited sum into the account of the Complainant is considered to an extent reasonable and it is not having any deficiency in service.


 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost.


 


 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th April 2010.


 


 

PRESIDENT: Sd/-


 


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 


 

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. M. J. Philip. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. S. Balan. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India,

Sulthan Bathery.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Notice.

A2. Copy of Pass Book.

A3. Copy of Letter.

A4. Canara Bank ATM Slip dt:04.08.2009.

A5. Union Bank ATM Slip. dt:08.04.2009.

A6. SBT ATM Slip. dt:08.04.2009.

A7. Copy of Request for reversal of cash

not received from ATM. dt:05.08.2009.

A8 series. Copy of Lawyer Notice and Postal Receipts.

A9. Reply Notice. dt:25.08.2009.


 

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:


 

B1. Statement of Account for the period from 01.07.2009 to 21.04.2010.

 


HONABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW, MemberHONABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE, PRESIDENTHONABLE MR. P Raveendran, Member