IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 28th day of February, 2017
Filed on 11.06.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.175/2015
between
Complainants:- Opposite Party:-
- Sri. Sherin. N.M. The Manager
Nadayilparampu State Bank of India
Beach Ward, Alappuzha P.B. No.4601, Alappuzha
(By Adv. Miji. S. Mony)
- Smt. Chandralekha. T.L.
W/o Sherin. N.M.
-do- -do-
(By Adv. Abhilash. C. Soman)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
On 4.10.2014 the first complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the S.B.I. Bank by using the ATM card of his wife (2nd complainant), complainant received only Rs.8,000/-. But in the transaction slip the amount shown as withdrawn is Rs.10,000/-, immediately the complainant contacted the bank and filed a complaint regarding the same. But so far he did not receive the amount of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
It is true that a withdrawal for Rs.10,000/- has been made from the account of the 2nd complainant through the ATM of opposite party on 4.10.2014. The alleged transaction is a success transaction and the amount shown as withdrawn is received by the party. The electronic journal details for each transaction are automatically recorded by the machine. In the journal print of the alleged transaction is show as “000”. If the response code is shown as “000” it is a success transaction. There is no mechanical defect for this particular ATM during that particular period. Immediately after receiving the complaint the opposite party did all verifications and found that no mistake or wrong amount has been dispensed by the machine to the complainants or anybody else on that day or subsequent day. Further all the transactions during that period were seen properly recorded and no excess amount was found in the admin balance of the machine.
3. The first complainant was examined as PW1. Document produced was marked as Ext.A1. Opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B5.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that on 4.10.2014, the first complainant had tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the account of the 2nd complainant through the ATM of the opposite party. According to the complainant he had received only Rs.8,000/-, but the transaction slip shows that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/-, so he had contacted the opposite party and made complaint regarding the same. But so far he did not receive the amount of Rs.2,000/-. Opposite party filed version stating that transaction of the complainant is a successful transaction and the amount shown as withdrawn was received by the party. In order to substantiate their contention, opposite party produced the attested copy of the electronic journal print out of the alleged transaction and it marked as Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 the response code is shown as “000.” According to the opposite party if the response code is shown as “000” it is a successful transaction. Ext.B4 is the attested copy of the administrative balance report produced by the opposite party. According to the opposite party, the administrative balance of the ATM machine for 4.10.2014 was correct as per the said records of the bank. Opposite party further stated that immediately after receiving the complaint, Smt. Susy George the Accountant in charge of ATM had entered into the ATM room and opened the machine in the presence of the first complainant and did not find any excess amount in the ATM machine. Complainant during the cross examination totally denied this. It is pertinent to notice that no effort has been taken from the part of the opposite party to examine said Smt. Susy George as a witness. Moreover the opposite party raised another contention that the complainant may lose the amount alleged in the complaint due to the carelessness on the part of the first complainant while taking the cash from the machine at the time of transaction and owing to the careless pulling of the currency note by the first complainant, some currency notes might have been retained in the ATM machine and there is a chance that next or anyone who entered ATM room might have taken that currency notes. Since the complainant totally denied this contention, the burden is on the part of the opposite party to prove the same. The opposite party ought to have produced a copy of the CCTV running footage as evidence to establish their case. Hence the best evidence to prove the above contention is the production of CCTV footage, and opposite party is in no way justified in sticking on their contention by withholding the best evidence. Relying the decision reported in CPJ 2015 Volume III page No.136 of Hon’ble National Commission, the opposite party was deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not making available a copy of CCTV footage to the complainant.” In the absence of such evidence the opposite party is precluded from stating that the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/- on 4.10.2014.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant with 8% interest from 4.10.2014 to till realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me an pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2017.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member):
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sherin. N.M. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Statement of account
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Pradeep. R. Chandran (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Attested copy of journal print log
Ext.B2 - Attested copy of statement of accounts
Ext.B3 - Attested copy of electronic journal print out of 17 transactions
Ext.B4 - Attested copy of administrative balance report
Ext.B5 - Copy of ATM administration physical cash balance register
// True Copy //
By Order
To
Senior Superintendent
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
