rd August 20092
card at O.P. No. 1 in their ATM box. But they did not handover the same to him.
The O.P. No. 1 would have sent the card to O.P. No. 2 bank in case the O.P. No. 1
bank had no permission to handover the card directly to the customer. O.P. No. 1
failed to do the same. The O.P. No. 2 also failed to trace out the card by informing to
O.P. No. 1. The ATM record on that particular day would show the case of the
complainant and the status of transaction. Both O.P. No. 1 & 2 did not take any
action. Therefore, the complaint was filed against O.P. No. 1 & 2 to pay
compensation of Rs. 35,000/- jointly and severally for suffering and mental agony
along with costs and cost of the new card.
3. The O.P. No. 1 filed a counter that the complainant was an account and
card holder of HDFC Bank and HDFC bank was also a member of National Finance
Switch. The respondent installed ATM at Jammalamadugu road, Proddatur to
withdraw cash by their account holder’s having ATM Card. The respondent
permitted other bank ATM card based on the agreement with other banks of National
Finance Switch net work. The complainant should have approached HDFC bank for
further remedy or for new ATM card which would be issued on free of cost. There
was a provision in the bank to settle issue amicably to the satisfaction of the
customers in case the complaint was genuine. The ATM installed by the respondent
was an electronic machine and the transaction would be recorded in a printed format
including denial. The respondent searched their records and found no transaction in
ATM as alleged by the complainant. The transaction in ATM on the day would start
from 00.00 hours till 24.00 hours. The printing journal inside the ATM machine
contained number of entries in a paper roll which was difficult to produce. The
respondent sent a reply to the letter received from the complainant. The letter sent to
the complainant was returned and delivered sating that no such addressee was
available. The complainant was not residing in the address given in the letter. The
complaint was filed without waiting any reply from the Bank. The complainant failed
C.C. No. 63 of 20093
to produce any proof. The HDFC Bank was not added which was necessary to solve
the dispute. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. After filing of the complaint and after opposite party filed the counter the
complainant impleaded O.P. No. 2 as per orders in I.A. No. 140/2009, dt. 25-6-2009.
5. The O.P. No. 2 filed a counter admitting the account of ATM card of the
complainant but the card was not used properly. There was no deficiency of service
on the part of the respondent. The respondent was unnecessarily impleaded to get
wrongly gain. The complainant filed two complaints i.e. one in Telugu and another in
English. In Telugu complaint the respondent was not a party. In Telugu version of
the complaint the complainant stated that the deficiency of service was towards
respondent No. 1. The respondent was ready to issue card on payment of Rs. 560/-.
Thus there was no deficiency of service and the complaint may be dismissed with
costs.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for
determination.
i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the
part of the respondents?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
iii. To what relief?
7. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A3 were marked and on behalf of
the respondents Ex. B1 & B2 were marked.
8. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant filed a complaint in Telugu in person
at the first instance against O.P. No. 1 only. Subsequently he amended the
complaint by adding O.P. No. 2 as per orders in I.A. No. 140/2009, dt. 25-6-2009
and then filed neat copy of complaint in English.
C.C. No. 63 of 20094
9. The complainant had a Bank account with O.P. No. 2 i.e. HDFC Bank,
Proddatur Branch with account No. 10131700002416. He was issued ATM card No.
4214240603354727. Ex. A1 was printed letter evidencing of issue of ATM card to the
complainant. On 22-2-2009 the complainant went to O.P. No. 1 at Proddatur to
withdraw money from his account by way of ATM card because the card issued by
O.P. No. 2 could be used from any bank. The complainant operated but he received a
massage with display “as this ATM is temporarily out of order” and the card fell into
the ATM Box. He reported the mater immediately to the O.P. No. 1, who requested
the complainant to visit five days later. The complainant visited again O.P. No. 1,
who expressed t hat the ATM card should not be handed over directly but would be
sent to the O.P. No. 2 Bank for proper delivery. It was not sent nor delivered. The
ATM card was lost in O.P. No. 1 ATM Box. The complainant gave a written complaint
to O.P. No. 1 to hand over the ATM card or issue a New card. Ex. A3 was Xerox copy
of letter. The complainant filed Ex. A2 a copy of account extract issued by O.P. No. 2.
In Ex. A2 there was a transaction at ATM under card No. 4214240603354727 on
21-2-2009. But there was no transaction on 22-2-2009. He operated on many
occasions properly. The O.P. No. 1 addressed a letter to the complainant that in case
of fresh ATM card was required, the complainant would contact O.P. No. 2 bank. Ex.
B1 was Xerox copy of letter. Ex. B2 was un-served cover from O.P. No. 1 to the
complainant. The O.P. No. 2 admitted the account and ATM card issued to the
complainant. The complainant had not withdrawn the amount on 22-2-2009 in view
of non functioning of the ATM and he did not get back his ATM card issued by O.P.
No. 2 from O.P. No. 1 ATM counter. Every day the staff of the bank would open ATM
box for various reasons. When the O.P. No. 1 found the card of the complainant it
was their duty to send the card to O.P. No. 2 for proper delivery to the complainant.
They have not done so. There was no answer regarding the ATM card of the
complainant. Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of
C.C. No. 63 of 20095
the O.P. No. 1 only. The O.P. No. 2 was not concerned for the loss of the card at O.P.
No. 1 by the complainant. Thus the points are answered accordingly.
9. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed without costs,
directing the R1 Bank to get a New ATM card from the R2 Bank and deliver the card
to the complainant with Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental
agony and compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The
case against R2 is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by us in the open forum, this the 3
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Letter from O.P. No. 2 to complainant.
Ex. A2 Copy of account extract issued by O.P. No. 2.
Ex. A3 X/c of letter from complainant to O.P. No. 1.
Exhibits marked for Respondents: -
Ex. B1 X/c of letter from O.P. No. 1 to complainant, dt. 30-3-2009.
Ex. B2 Un-served cover.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) M.P. Mastan, S/o Peddanna, R/o D.No. 15-1102,
Modampalli village, Proddatur, Kadapa District.
2) Sri Khaja Mohiddin, Advocate.
3) Sri M. Sai Niranjan Babu, Advocate.
1) Copy was made ready on :
2) Copy was dispatched on :
3) Copy of delivered to parties :
B.V.P. - - -
C.C. No. 63 of 2009rd August 2009
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 63 / 2009
M.P. Mastan, S/o Peddanna, R/o D.No. 15-1102,
Modampalli village, Proddatur, Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
Proddatur Branch, Kadapa Dist.
Proddatur Branch, Kadapa District. ….. Respondents.
Sri M. Sai Niranjan Babu, Advocate for R2 and upon perusing the material papers on
(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant had S.B.
Account with O.P. No. 2 Bank with account No. 1013170002416. The O.P. No. 2
issued a debit card No. 421424603354727 with insurance coverage of Rs. 5,00,000/-
. The complainant paid Rs. 560/- towards cost of the card to O.P. No. 2. The O.P.
No. 2 provided a facility to withdraw money from any bank as ATM on payment of
Rs. 18/- towards service charges. On 22-2-2009 the complainant used his ATM card
with O.P. No.1 bank to withdraw money but the debit card fell into the ATM box and
message was displaced on the screen that “this ATM was temporarily out of order”.
On the next day the complainant reported the matter to O.P. No. 1, who requested
the complainant to contact five days later. Again the complainant went to O.P.No. 1
Bank and requested to deliver his ATM card but the O.P. No. 1 bank informed that it
was entered in their register about the card collected from ATM Box and it would not
be given back directly as the card belonged to other bank. The complainant lost the
