COMPLAINT FILED:06.03.2004
DISPOSED ON:22.12.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
22nd DAY OF DECEMBER-2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.314/2004
Complainant | Umesh C, Rattle and Hum, 330 4 B Cross, OMBR Layout, Banaswadi, Bangalore-43. In person. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | The Manager, State Bank of India, Banaswadi Branch, Bangalore-43. Advocate:Sri.A.Ravishankar, |
O R D E R
Sri.B.S.REDDY,PRESIDENT.
The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission remitted this matter for fresh disposal by setting aside the orders of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore which confirmed the order of this Forum dt.09.06.2004 allowing the complaint by placing OP ex-parte.
2. The complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party (herein after refer to as OP) to refund an amount of Rs.10,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
3. The case of the complainants to be stated in brief is that:
On 09.12.2003 in between 11.26 and 11.46 A.M. the complainant went to the ATM of OP at its Banaswadi Branch to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from his account bearing No.36576 and he operated the ATM machine to draw a sum of Rs.10,000/-. After operating the machine for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-, the complainant received the customer advise showing the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and the balance as Rs.600/-. Before operating the machine the complainant checked the balance amount available in his account and found the amount that was available was Rs.10,600/-. Though the complainant received advice showing the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- but in fact the ATM machine did not deliver Rs.10,000/-. The complainant again operated the machine for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-, for which he received advice slip as ‘Sorry unable to process daily WD limit reached. Again the complainant operated the machine to find out the balance amount which showed the balance available as Rs.600/-. Then the complainants sought the help of the security person of ATM and another person who was also waiting for the withdrawal of the amount required by him and the said person operated the machine and withdraw the amount required by him. The complainant again operated the machine for the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. Again he received a reply as per document No.5 stating ‘Sorry unable to process daily WD limit reached’. Thereafter, the complainant went to OP informed the staff and one of the lady employee accompanied the complainant to the ATM cabin and as per her direction he operated the ATM machine. Again he received a reply to the effect that the balance is Rs.600/-, then the complainant approached the Manager of Op and the Manager told the complainant that in that particular ATM machine there is no facility to withdraw Rs.10,000/- at a time and it has got the facility to withdraw only Rs.4,000/-. The Manager failed to convince him as to how the ATM customer advice showed the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. The Manager of OP asked him to meet on the next day at 3 P.M. and told him the excess amount will be found at the time of opening the ATM machine and also promised to pay him Rs.10,000/- and further advised him to give a written complaint to the CVRN SBI Branch, since the complainant was having his account with the said branch. Immediately he went to the CVRN Branch of OP and informed the ATM technician Mohanraj about the problems faced by him and the said technician asked him to give a written complaint. Accordingly, the complainant went to give the written complaint with the Manager of the CVRN Branch of OP and he was told that the matter will be delayed if the complaint is given in that branch and advised him to give the complaint at Banaswadi Branch of the Bank. Accordingly, the complainant gave a complaint before the Banasavadi Branch. The Manager of the Banasavadi Branch asked the complainant to come on 10.12.2003 at 3.00 P.M. Accordingly, the complainant went there on the next day and the Manager took some boxes from the ATM machine to his cabin and did not allow the complainant to enter his cabin. Thus the complainant was not allowed to be present when the box was opened and verified and the Manager told him that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not found in the box and asked him to approach the CVRN Branch of SBI and further told him that Rs.10,000/- will be credited to his account automatically and further advised to check the same at the ATM. Accordingly, the complainant operated the ATM machine on 12.12.2003 to find out the balance available to his credit and the ATM customer advise showed the balance amount as Rs.600/-, once again the complainant approached CVRN Branch of SBI and met the Manager, The Manager assured that he will get his amount within few days. On 16.12.2003 the complainant went to the ATM of OP at Banasavadi and operated the machine, again he received the customer advise showing the balance as Rs.600/-. The complainant went to CVRN Branch of OP and informed the Manager about the problems faced by him. The Manager asked him to give a complaint in writing and accordingly he gave a complaint on that day and the complainant has produced copy of the said complaint. After receiving the complaint the complainant was informed that his problem will be solved. Again the complainant went to CVRN Branch of SBI and met one Sri.Jayaram and he advised him to go through the video pictures relating to the transaction that took place on 09.12.2003 and the same was not clearly visible. Thus the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP failed to attend his problems by crediting Rs.10,000/- to his account. Hence the complaint.
4. On appearance, Op filed version admitting that the complainant had a Savings Bank Account in State Bank of India, C.V.Ramannagar Branch with the facility of ATM. It is denied that on 09.12.2003, the ATM machine did not deliver a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and he has not received the same. Further, it is denied that the Manager of the Bank informed the complainant that only sum of Rs.4,000/- can be withdrawn at a time from the machine and that a sum of Rs.10,000/- at once cannot be withdrawn and the Manager assured that he would open the ATM machine on 10.12.2003 and return a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. It is also denied that the complainant approached ATM Technician Sri.Mohanraj and lodged a complaint before the OP-Branch and even at that time he was assured of return of Rs.10,000/- by the Bank officials. Further, it is denied that on 10.12.2003 the complainant came to the OP-Bank and he was assured by the officials of the Bank that he would get his money back within 48 hours. It is also denied that the complainant went to the local head office and met one Sri.Jayaram and lodged the complaint before him and that the said officer assured the complainant that he would write to their Mumbai Office and help him in securing the money. Further, it is denied that on 14.01.2004 the complainant along with Jayaram, Officer of the Bank saw the video pictures of the ATM and that the same was not clear and the said Officer informed the complainant that he would assist him in the matter. OP denied it’s liability to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- and an amount of Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation.
It is contended that the ATM Machines consists of money with denominations of Rs.5,000/- Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- and the card holder can withdraw the money if there is sufficient money in his available account. Once the money is withdrawn, the suitable and necessary communication will come out from the machine indicating the quantum of transaction successfully done by the card holder. The customer will get a receipt indicating transaction he has successfully carried out and at the same time necessary debit entry/JPL will be raised by the machine. The document No.2 produced by the complainant himself dt.09.12.2003 with the time 11.27 hours clearly indicates successful transaction done by the complainant. In the JPL receipt, the ATM machine has indicated the response code “000” which in other words indicate that the transaction is successfully completed by the card holder. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he has not received the money as per document No.2 produced by him is not correct. The ATM machine is fool-proof one and the services could be utilized only with the aid of the card in possession of the customer and the PIN exclusively known to him. The disputed transaction has been made only with the card and PIN of the complainant and as such he cannot have any claim against the second OP-Bank. So long as the card is in the possession of the complainant, the complainant is liable even for unauthorized withdrawals from his account using his card and PIN. The OP-Bank has made all efforts to counter cheque the transaction referred by the customer and confirmed to the complainant that they did not have any excess cash in the ATM and have also informed the complainant that they have tallied with the ATM Switch Center transaction log with the Branch journal and found no difference. In view of the same, the contentions of the complainant are false and are liable to be rejected. The ATM machine was in order even as per the narration of the complainant. Admittedly the complainant has checked his balance at 11.26 hours on 09.12.2003 and thereafter at 11.27hours withdrawn Rs.10,000/-. Even as per the receipt Nos 3 and 4 produced by the complainant at 11.28 hours on 09.12.2003 the command of the complainant for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- is returned with JPL stating “Sorry–Unable to Process” and immediately thereafter on the same day at 11.31 hours, the ATM machine has indicated to the complainant that he has balance of Rs.600/- in his account. Immediately thereafter at 11.34 hours again the machine has indicated the complainant that it cannot process the command of the complainant for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. The other customers have successfully carried out their respective transaction in the ATM machine on the disputed date, clearly establishes that the machine was in order and the complainant has specifically withdrawn the money and is attempting for an unlawful gain. In case of successful transaction of the ATM machine, the ATM code will be “000” which means ATM has made the payment. In case where the transaction is not successful, the ATM machine would reply with response code stating the relevant reasons for not carrying out the transaction successfully. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5.The complainant in order to substantiate the complaint averments filed affidavit evidence. The Branch Manager of OP filed affidavit evidence and Additional affidavit evidence, produced documents in support of the defence version.
6.The complainant filed Written Arguments with paper cuttings as part I and by way of reply filed to the Op version as part II, produced Internet websites relating to the SBI ATMs failure and claimed total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OP. OP filed Written Arguments.
7. Arguments on both sides heard.
8. Points for consideration are:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has
proved the deficiency in service
on the part of the OP?
Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant is
entitled for the relief’s claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
9. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:- Negative.
Point No.2:- Negative.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
10. The undisputed facts are that the complainant is having his S.B. Account No.36756 with S.B.I. C.V.R.N Branch, Bangalore. On 09.12.2003, the complainant operated the ATM of S.B.I.Banasavadi Branch (OP) for withdrawing an amount of Rs.10,000/- from his S.B.Account. The complainant claims that the customer advice slip issued marked as document No.2 indicated the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and the balance as Rs.600/- but in fact the ATM machine did not deliver Rs.10,000/- cash to him. Therefore again when he operated the ATM for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- for which he received the reply as ‘Sorry Unable to Process WD limit reached’, the said advice slip is document No.3. Again the complainant operated the ATM to find out the balance amount which showed the balance available as Rs.600/- as per advice slip document No.4. Thus the complainant claims that ATM machine was not functioning properly because of the defect in the machine an amount of Rs.10,000/- was not delivered to him.
11.The defence of the OP is that the ATM machine was in order on the date of disputed transaction, as the complainant has checked his balance at 11-26 hours on 09.12.2003 and the balance shown was Rs.10,600/- as per advice slip document No.1. The complainant has withdrawn Rs.10,000/- at 11.27 hours as per document No.2 and in the JPL receipt the ATM machine has indicated the response code ‘000’ which indicates the transaction is successfully completed. The document No.3 the advice slip shows that at 11.28 hours the command of the complainant for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- is returned with JPL stating ‘Sorry-Unable to Process’ and document No.4 advice slip shows that immediately thereafter at 11.31 hours ATM machine has indicated the balance in the account is Rs.600/-. Further at 11.34 hours the ATM machine has indicated to the complainant that it cannot process the command of the complainant for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. The other customers have successfully carried out the respective transactions. The OP Bank has made all efforts to counter check the transaction and confirms to the complainant that they did not have any excess cash due to ATM. The Bank also tallied the ATM switch center transaction log with the Bank journal and found no difference. Thus it is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
12.After going through the advice slips marked as document No.1 to 4 it becomes clear that on 09.12.2003 the complainant has checked the balance and the balance was shown at Rs.10.600/- as per document No.1. At 11.27 hours the complainant has withdrawn Rs.10,000/- as per document No.2 and in the JPL receipt the ATM machine has indicated the response code ‘000’ indicating that the transaction is successfully completed. The advice slip document No.3 shows that at 11.28 hours command of the complainant for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- is returned with JPL stating ‘Sorry-Unable to Process’ At 11.31 hours the ATM machine has indicated the balance in the account of the complainant is Rs.600/- as per document No.4. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that the other person who was waiting used his ATM card and withdrawn the amount. From this it becomes clear that the other person has successfully withdrawn the amount by making use of the ATM card. If the machine was not in order the other customer who used the ATM card could not have withdrawn the amount. Under these circumstances, we are unable to accept the case of complainant that the ATM machine was not in order.
13.From the affidavit evidence of the Bank Manger of OP it becomes clear that OP Bank has made all efforts to counter check the transaction and confirm to the complainant that they did not have any excess cash due to ATM. The OP Bank has tallied the ATM switch center transaction log with the Bank journal and found no difference. In the complaint, the complainant has admitted the fact that on the next day i.e., on 10.12.2003 the Branch Manger of OP checked the balance available in the box and found no excess amount. In case if the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not drawn, there could have been the excess amount found in the ATM box. Merely because, the complainant was not allowed inside the cabin of the Assistant Manager at the time of opening the box, it cannot be said that in spite of excess cash of Rs.10,000/- being available in the ATM box, the Branch Manger and other officials have falsely stated that there is no excess amount found in the box.
14.The complainant has produced the paper cuttings to show that on account of ATMs failure, some excess amounts are drawn and in the advice slips the balance amounts shown more than what was balance in the accounts and some Bank employees involved in the fraudulent transaction and the statement of AGM of SBI wherein he has given a statement that CDMA enabled ATMS will not work if the service goes out of range or an ATM relying on V-SAT goes down if it loses connection with the satellite (this can happen if there are disruptions in signal transmission, like an overcast sky or a high rise building near the counter). A power disruption can also make an ATM inaccessible, even though these machines come with a power back-up facility of three-four hours. And out of the 103 SBI ATM counters across Bangalore, 60 are onsite counters connected through Optic Fiber Cables, while 15 offsite ATMs are connected through CDMA and 28 have V-SAT.
15.Further the complainant has narrated the other incident dt.12.11.2004 when he had gone to the SBI NAL Branch on Airport Road, Bangalore for withdrawal of Rs.3,000/- from his S.B account. When he operated the ATM the balance amount was shown in his account Rs.3,596.42/-, when he attempted for withdrawing Rs.3,000/- the advice slip was issued as ‘Sorry-Unable to Process’, when he further attempted the advice slip showed available balance as Rs.121.42/-. In the pass book entry the debit entry was shown as Rs.3,000/- and the balance amount shown as 596.42/-. In fact the amount of Rs.3,000/- not at all drawn and the branch Manager of NAL Branch contacted the CVRN Branch Manager and the amount of Rs.3,000/- was credited to the account after 7 days. Thus it is contended by the complainant that because of the defect in the ATM machine the amount of Rs.3,000/- was not shown as withdrawn but it was shown as insufficient funds but in the pass book the debit entry was shown without withdrawing the amount. Thus the ATM machine does not work properly. On the date of disputed transaction also the ATM machine was not properly working and the complainant has not received the cash of Rs.10,000/-. In our view, merely because some ATM machines were found defective on some occasions, it cannot be presumed that on the date of disputed transaction ATM machine of OP was not in order reflecting the correct transaction. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In view of the same, the complainant is not entitled for the relief’s claimed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of December-2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
