IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA Saturday the 30th day of January, 2015 Filed on 29.04.2014 Present - Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in C.C.No.118/2014 between Complainant:- Opposite Parties:- Sri. Thomas Philip 1. The Manager, Syndicate Bank Kandathil Peedikayil Kayamkulam – 690 502 Pullikkanakku P.O. (By Adv. P.K. Mathew) Kayamkulam – 690 537 2. The Manager, Federal Bank Ltd. Kayamkulam – 690 502 (By Adv. Cheriyan Kuruvila) O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT) The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant had been maintained a savings bank account in Syndicate Bank, Kayamkulam branch for more than 2 decades. On 2nd May, 2013 at about 10 ‘ o clock complainant went to the Syndicate Bank, ATM at Kayamkulam to withdraw Rs.25,000/-. As the ATM was out of money he went to the nearby Federal Bank ATM to withdraw the money. As usual he inserted the card and made entry for Rs.10,000/- which he got instantly. Then he made another entry for Rs.10,000/- and the ATM started to process. Suddenly it stopped working and did not dispense the money. Then he tried again for Rs.10,000/- and the same thing happened again and the money was not dispensed. Thinking that it was due to insufficient money, he tried for Rs.5,000/- and he got the money. Thus he totally collected Rs.15,000/- in 4 times. The next day he went to the Syndicate Bank to update the passbook and to his surprise he was debited Rs.25,000/-. Immediately he raised a complaint with the Syndicate Bank authorities and they said they will look into the matter and do the needful. Then after one month on enquiry the first opposite party informed that they had crossed checked with the Federal Bank there was no excess money fund in the Federal bank ATM. The opposite parties have not given any clear communication regarding the transactions of the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.10,000/- with 12% interest and Rs.10,000/- for compensation and Rs.5,000/- for the costs. 3. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:- There is no defective service on the part of the first opposite party. On 2.5.2013 complainant has withdrawn Rs.25,000/- as per 3 operations by the debit card through the Federal Bank ATM. Since the customer complained that he did not receive Rs.10,000/- the Bank raised a dispute before the Federal Bank and the Federal Bank has intimated this Bank that all the 3 transactions on 2.45.2013 is successful and their ATM balance tally. Since all the 3 operations are successful Rs.25,000/- is debited from his a/c via ATM transaction as can be seen from the a/c copy produced. The debit in his a/c is in order and tally with the ATM withdrawal. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs. 4. The version of the second opposite party is as follows:- The first opposite party has need enquiries with the second opposite party regarding the transaction of the complainant through ATM counter of Federal Bank at Kayamkulam branch. On verification it was confirmed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was withdrawn from the ATM on 2.5.2013. The amount was seen withdrawn by 3 successful operations. The account of the ATM counter tallied with the withdrawal of Rs.25,000/-. The claim of the complainant is unreasonable, unsustainable and fanciful. He has no right to file a complaint of this nature and to proceed against the second opposite party. 5. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. The first opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B5. Ext.B5 marked subject to objection. The second opposite party was cross examined as RW2. The second opposite party produced the CD and it marked as Ext.B6. 6. The points came up for considerations are:- - Whether there is any defect or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs and costs?
7. According to the complainant on 2nd May, 2013 he went to the Federal Bank’s
ATM and inserted the card and made entry for Rs.10,000/- which he got instantly. Then he made another entry for Rs.10,000/- and the ATM started to process and suddenly it stopped working and did not dispense any money. After some time when the display came to normal he again tried for Rs.10,000/- and the same then happened again and money was not dispensed. Then he thought that this action was due to insufficient money, so he tried for Rs.5,000/- and he got the money. The total amount he collected is Rs.15,000/- but on next day when he tried to update his passbook he found that he was debited Rs.25,000/-. Even though he complained about it to the opposite parties so far no results. According to the first opposite party on 2.5.2013 the complainant has withdrawn Rs.25,000/- as per 3 operations, and when the customer complained that he did not receive Rs.10,000/- the bank raised dispute before the Federal bank and the Federal bank intimated the Syndicate bank that all the 3 transactions on 2.5.2013 is successful. The second opposite party Federal bank stated that the account and the balance amount available at the teller counter reveals that the total withdrawal was Rs.25,000/- and not Rs.15,000/-. In order to prove their contention the second opposite party produced the printouts of the CCTV pictures of the ATM counter of the Federal bank, Kayamkulam on 2.5.2013 and it marked as Ext.B1 series. The original CD of the CCTV pictures also produced and marked as Ext.B2. On verifying these pictures, we came to see that the cash taken at 9.57 a.m. on first transaction is very clear, but the cash taken as stated by opposite party at 9.58 a.m. on second transaction is not clear. At the time of evidence the complainant asked the opposite party to produce the running visuals of CCTV footage. But the opposite party produced only the stills of the visuals. While cross examining RW2 he admitted that in the ATM cabin two cameras were operating one was still and another was running. According to the complainant on 2.5.2013 he had done the transaction. On the next day when he went to update the passbook, he came to see the difference in the amount that he debited and he complained about it. Both opposite parties have no case that the complainant was received after the reasonable time. In the application filed before the Banking Ombudsman the date of representation by the complainant to the bank is filled as “Complaint made in the format issued by the bank on 13.5.2013.” So it is clear that the complaint was made within the period. If the second opposite party can produce the stills of the visuals what prevented them from producing the CCTV running footage to prove their case. The second opposite party ought to have made available a copy of the CCTV running footage to the complainant as the best evidence to establish their case. “Relying the decision reported in CPJ 2015 Volume 3 page 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.25,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- on 2.5.2013. In result, complaint is allowed. The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with 8% Interest from 2.5.2013 till realization to the complainant. Since the primary relief is granted, no further amount as to compensation or costs. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2016. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) : Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) : Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) : Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - Thomas Philip (Witness) Ext.A1 - Copy of the ATM statement Ext.A2 - Copy of the letter dated 29.7.2013 Ext.A3 - Coy of the letter from the complainant to the first opposite party Ext.A4 series - Copy of the acknowledgement cards (2 Nos.) Ext.A5 - Copy of the email Ext.A6 - Copy of the application of Banking Obmbudsman Evidence of the opposite parties:- RW1 - Babu T.K. (Witness) RW2 - Santhosh Kumar P.K. (Witness) Ext.B1 - True copy of the statement of account from 1.1.2013 to 15.6.2014 of Syndicate Bank, Kayamkulam Ext.B2 - True copy of the ATM statement of Federal Bank Ext.B3 - Application for Syndicate Bank Global Debit/ATM card Ext.B4 - Photo copy of the journal report issued by Federal bank with trace with trace No.9545 Ext.B5 - Certified copy of the previous person’s transaction (Subject to objection) Ext.B6 - CD // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F. Typed by:- pr/- Compared by:- | 
