Date of Filing : 29.06.2012
Date of Order : 18.08.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 18th AUGUST 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 80 / 2012
Sri. N. Ashoka,
S/o. V. Narayana,
Aged about 38 years,
Seesandra Village, Huttur Hoblic,
Kolar Taluk.
(By Sri. B.S. Sathyanarayana, Adv.) ….. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Manager,
Syndicate Bank, KGF Branch,
Kolar District.
2. The Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
P.B. No. 3, Swarkas Road, Kolar City,
Kolar.
3. The Manager,
Canara Bank,
Near Doom Light Circle, Kolar City,
Kolar.
(By Sri. K.V. Shankarappa, Adv. for OP1)
(By Sri. V. Sridhara Murthy, Adv. for OP2)
(By Sri. R.A. Mohan, Adv. for OP2 ….. Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complaint made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.12,000/- to the Complainant are necessary:
Complainant is having an S.B. Account with OP1 bearing No. 15002200126574 and has been provided with ATM Card bearing No. 4033 9815 0001 3085. On 07.04.2012 at 5.50 PM Complainant tried to know the balance in his S.B. Account and operated ATM machine of OP2 and found that there was a balance of Rs.2,997/- at that time on that day. At 5.51 PM when the Complainant tried to draw Rs.1,000/- from the said ATM of OP2, slip came stating that “transaction rejected”. At 5.51 PM again Complainant tried to draw Rs.1,000/-, again similar slip came from ATM. As the Complainant was in need of money, at 6.07 PM on that day Complainant went to OP3 and operated ATM, there also slip came as “transaction rejected”. When he tried again at 6.08 PM on the same day, that time also slip came as “transaction rejected”, but regarding these two transactions, in the slips it is stated that Rs.1,000/- has been withdrawn and it is also stated “insufficient funds”. On the same day Complainant tried to know the balance at 6.15 PM in ATM of OP2, there he found the balance as Rs.997/- instead of Rs.2,997/-. Hence, Complainant lodged written complaint with OP1 and also sent the complaint to OP3 by courier. Complainant is seeking refund of Rs.2,000/- which has not been drawn by the Complainant and also compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
2(a). In brief the version of OP1 are:-
Complainant’s S.B. Account and ATM Card with the OP1 are admitted. Complainant trying to draw the money in the ATM of Ops 2 & 3 and getting the ATM slips stating transaction rejected & insufficient funds and showing the balance are not within the knowledge of this OP. Lodging of the complaint by the Complainant is admitted. As per the Bank records, Rs.2,000/- has been debited in the S.B. Account maintained by the Complainant. Complainant was instructed to verify and approach S.B.M. Thereafter, Complainant never informed what action he has taken in the matter. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
2(b). In brief the version of OP2 are:-
Complainant checking the balance with this OP and using ATM Cad are admitted. Lodging of the complaint by the Complainant is admitted. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
2(c). In brief the version of OP3 are:-
It is the OP1 who is answerable to the Complainant and not any other parties. ATM is provided to the customers to draw the cash and other transactions are with the Banker with whom he is having account. This OP is nothing to do with this transaction in this case. He is not liable to answer anything.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, Complainant and OP2 had filed affidavit and OP1 had filed Memo stating that his version & documents be reads as his evidence. OP3 did not appear at all subsequent to filing of the version nor his Advocate is present. Hence, arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
POINTS
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our findings are:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Points (A) & (B) – Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant is having S.B. Account bearing No. 15002200126574 and ATM Card bearing No. 4033 9815 0001 3085 of OP1. It is also an admitted fact that on 07.04.2012 at 5.50 PM Complainant checked the balance in his S.B. Account in the ATM of OP2 and found that it was Rs.2,992/-.
7. Further, it is established that at 5.51 PM & at 5.52 PM on 07.04.2012 Complainant tried to get Rs.1,000/- from the ATM of OP2 and on these occasions slips that came out are with “transaction rejected”. At 5.50 PM in the account of the Complainant there was a balance of Rs.2,997/- and at 5.51 & 5.52 PM when the Complainant tried to draw money, slip came as “transaction rejected”. That means, no amount has been received by the Complainant and transaction has been rejected. This is nothing but deficiency in service. When there is a balance in the Complainant’s Account, ATM should have allowed/honoured the Complainant’s request, but that has not been done.
8. Further it is established that at 6.07 PM & 6.08 PM on that day Complainant approached ATM of OP3 and tried to draw Rs.1,000/-. On both occasions slips shown as transaction rejected & shown Rs.1,000/- has been withdrawn and it also shown that there was insufficient funds. When the Complainant has not received any money, how can the ATM show that transaction is complete or transaction is rejected as insufficient funds. This is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9. When the Complainant had lodged the complaint with the OP1, OP1 would have sought all the details from the Ops 2 & 3 regarding transaction as complete or not by taking log journal print and got it tallied with the cash balance. But, that has not been done. This is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
10. OP1 is at liberty to disassociate itself regarding ATM from OP2 or OP3 as the case may be here afterwards. OP1 is even entitled to get the money from OP2 or OP3 as the case may be for which this Order will not come in the way. It is because of the ATM facility which has been provided from Ops 2 & 3 Complainant had operated in those Machines. Hence, it is OP1 who is responsible for payment to the Complainant.
11. Here there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Ops 2 & 3. Complainant has not purchased anything from Ops 2 & 3 for any consideration, but he has simply operated ATM of Ops 2 & 3 that has been provided to him because of OP1. As stated supra, Machine of OP3 was 100% defective and hence no money had come to the Complainant, but slips show that it has been rejected and this rejection that has come at 5.51 & 5.52 PM in the ATM of OP2. When the transactions have been rejected at 5.51 & 5.52 PM, how can any amount is paid at 6.07 & 6.08 PM. That means without paying any money, merely ATM has been operated, amount has been debited to the account of the Complainant. This is nothing but deficiency in service.
12. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP1 is directed to pay to the Complainant sum of Rs.2,000/- together with interest @ 12% P.A. from 07.04.2012 until payment within 30 days from today.
3. OP1 is also directed pay Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant as costs of this litigation.
4. OP1 is directed to send the amount as ordered at (2) & (3) above to the Complainant by Demand Draft through RPAD and intimate this Forum the compliance of the Order within 45 days.
5. Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 18th day of August 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
