CC Filed on 11.03.2009<br /> Disposed on 28.06.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 28th day of June 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 17/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> Sri. Mahadeva Naik,<br /> S/o. Masthi Naik, 50 years,<br /> R/o. “Mohana Nilaya”,<br /> Near Water Tank,<br /> Keelukote,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.S. Sathyanarayana & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. The Manager,<br /> State Bank of India,<br /> Antharaganga Road,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. N.G. Vasudev Moorthy & others)<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> State Bank of Mysore,<br /> Post Box No.3, <br /> Sparks Road,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. V. Sreedhara Murthy) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to rectify the wrong debit entry occurred in complainant’s savings bank account bearing No. 10724406765 for Rs.29,000/- entered on 11.01.2009 and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages with costs, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant is having a savings bank account bearing No. 10724406765 with OP.1. The complainant was also issued an ATM card for withdrawing the amount on the S.B. account. <br /> <br /> It is alleged that on 11.01.2009 the complainant went to the ATM counter belonging to OP.2 situated at Sparks Road, Kolar and withdrew Rs.4,000/- and he also took mini statement immediately which showed the balance available was Rs.30,194.43 after the said withdrawal. Further it is alleged again on 15.01.2009 he went to the said ATM counter to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,000/- but the ATM was unable to process his request and then he presented a pay slip to withdraw the amount at OP.1 bank. It is informed by OP.1 that the balance available was only Rs.99/-. Immediately complainant took mini statement from the ATM counter of OP.1 and to his surprise it was found that an amount of Rs.29,000/- was shown to be withdrawn on 11.01.2009 subsequent to the withdrawal of Rs.4,000/- through ATM. He alleged that on that day he had not used his ATM card for second time to withdraw Rs.29,000/- as reflected in the mini statement. The complainant gave oral complaint to OP.1. It is alleged that subsequently OP.1 asked the complainant to give written complaint accordingly on 16.01.2009 complainant gave a written complaint to OP.1. It is alleged that OP.1 addressed a letter to OP.2 in respect of the grievance of complainant, however the OPs failed to effect required correction in his S.B. account. Therefore he filed the complaint on 16.03.2009. <br /> <br /> 3. Both the OPs appeared and filed versions. The defence of OP.2 as made out in para.7 of its version may be stated as follows: That the complainant as on 11.01.2009 at 11.49 hours withdrawn an amount of Rs.4,000/- from ATM No.1 installed in its premises situated at Sparks Road, Gowripet, Kolar. Further that he has also taken a mini statement from ATM No.1 at 11.51 hours wherein the balance available was shown as Rs.34,194.43. Further it is contended that thereafter at 11.52 hours the complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.29,000/- through his ATM card from adjacent ATM No.2 situated in the same premises. OP.2 has produced the E.P. log in support of withdrawal of Rs.29,000/- through ATM No.2 by using the ATM card of complainant. Further it is contended that the enteries made in the E.P. log reflect the ATM card number of complainant and further the said E.P. log reflects a response code of ‘000’ which means that the transaction was successful. Further it is contended that there was no excess cash in the ATM which confirmed the correctness of the entry in E.P. log. The case of the complainant that he had drawn only Rs.4,000/- through his ATM card but there was a wrong debit entry of Rs.29,000/- in his S.B. account apart from the debit entry for Rs.4,000/-, is denied by OP.2. Therefore it contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.2. <br /> <br /> 4. OP.1 filed the version taking the same defence as OP.2, in view of the documents filed by OP.2 supporting the withdrawal of Rs.29,000/- in question. <br /> <br /> 5. The parties filed affidavits and the documents. <br /> <br /> 6. During the pendency of the proceedings it is submitted on behalf of OP.1-SBI, Kolar which is the account holder branch of the customer, that the present dispute was escalated before ATM Switch Centre, Mumbai as it was the duty of account holder branch to get a reply from ATM Switch Centre which maintains and re-conciliates all ATM transactions. Further it is submitted that the amount of Rs.29,000/- has been credited to the suspense account of OP.1 by ATM Switch Centre, Mumbai for crediting the same in the S.B. account of complainant. In substance it is submitted that ATM Switch Centre, Mumbai found that the disputed transaction was not a successful transaction. Therefore we intimated OP.1 by letter dated 11.03.2010 to credit Rs.29,000/- to the S.B. account of complainant immediately pending final decision regarding payment of interest and costs. Therefore OP.1 credited the disputed amount of Rs.29,000/- to the S.B. account of complainant. <br /> <br /> 7. In view of the subsequent development in the case, the question for consideration is who should bear the interest on the wrongfully debited amount and costs of the proceedings. <br /> <br /> 8. After considering the facts of the case, we think the interest is to be borne by account holder branch namely OP.1 SBI Kolar Branch and the costs of the proceeding is to be borne by OP.2. Considering the facts of the case, the costs of the proceedings may be fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP.2 (SBM,<br /> Kolar Branch) shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to complainant and OP.1- SBI, Kolar Branch shall credit the interest that may become due on Rs.29,000/- to the S.B. account of complainant from 11.01.2009 to the date of credit of the said amount at the rate prevailing for S.B. Account during relevant period. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 28th day of June 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />