Karnataka

Kolar

CC/59/2015

Sri.T.N.Natraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,SBM - Opp.Party(s)

03 May 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 15/12/2015

Date of Order: 03/05/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 03^rd DAY OF MAY 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 59 OF 2015

Sri. B.N. Nataraj,

Assistant Worker,

Kolar ITI, Kadripura Road,

Kolar.

 

(In-person)                                                          ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

State Bank Of Mysore,

M.G. Road, Kolar.

(Rep. by Sryuth.V.Sreedhara Murthy, Advocate)

 

2) The Manager,

State Bank Of India,

Battarahalli Branch (12660),

C-1 Ajith Layout, Basavanapura

Main Road, Virgonagar (Post),

Bangalore-49.

(Rep. by Sryuths. Sama Rangappa, S.R. Nagesh,

& H.V.Jagadeesh Babu, Advocates)                              …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint in-person (taken read as having submitted Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) has sought relief of recovery of Rs.6,000/- together with interest, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and thus in all Rs.30,000/- for being recovered from the Ops jointly and severally.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, he is customer of the OP-2 (being a branch at Battarahalli) holding SB account bearing No.309875443871.  And that he has the facility of ATM card bearing No.622018126 6000025128.  And that on 09.07.2015 at 1:13:34 he made use of the said ATM card of the ATM installed by the OP-1 branch at Kolar.  And that he sought withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- through the said ATM card.  Whereas he received cash as per below mentioned denominations:-

1000 x 33  =        33000=00

500 x 1      =        500=00

100 x 5      =        500=00

Thus total sum of Rs.34,000/- only.  And that, but sum of Rs.40,000/- came to be debited in his account.  And that he could not receive the balance sum of Rs.6,000/- nor slip showing withdrawal of the amount came out of the ATM installed.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, on the very same day he brought it to the notice of the person who was overseeing the ATM.  And that, as per the suggestion given by the said person he telephoned to the OP-2.  And that he was given help-line number so as to lodge the complaint.  And that accordingly on 11.07.2015 at 3:20:59 he gave complaint.  And that on 13.07.2015 SMS came from the said help-line which reads thus:-

“At 429219281306 is under process for resolution and status is given as CLAIM RAISED on 13.07.15 with ATM Branch, complaint will be RESo. Sender:-Bx SBI PSG.”

 

(c)    Further it is contended that, in-spite of it, the said sum of Rs.6,000/- was not re-credited to his account.  And that through the phone he made enquiry and in-person he approached the OP.2 for 10 times with no result.  And that OP-2 gave a letter stating that, all necessary steps were taken.  And that accordingly he was asked to approach the OP-1.  And that though he approached OP-1, it was in-vain.  And that in the first instance he was told by the OP-1 that, the amount would be credited to his account, whereas, subsequently they said nothing could be done and he was to take it for granted that Rs.6,000/- were lost.

 

(d)    Further it is contended that, on 05.11.2015 through registered post, he requested both the Ops to refund the said sum of Rs.6,000/-.  And that even then they did not take any action.  So contending, the complainant has come up with the present complaint on hand to seek above set out reliefs.

 

(e)    Along with the complaint he has submitted Xerox copy of the complaint so lodged on 14.08.2015 and Xerox copies of acknowledgement slips 02 in number, office copy of complaint dated: 02.11.2015 addressed to both the Ops.

 

03.   The OP-1 has submitted written version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto:-

 

(a)    It is more specifically contended that, transactions on the said date according to ATM journal print log, the transactions reflects response code of “000” against would indicate that the transactions were successful.  And that the complainant has failed in maintaining the secrecy of ATM PIN.  Thus it is contended that, the complaint is dismissed with exemplary costs.

 

04.   The OP-2 has submitted written version conceding maintaining of the said SB account on the part of the complainant.  And it is contended that it was not within its knowledge about the complainant being given the SMS as contended.  It is contended that as per the account extract Rs.40,000/- came to be withdrawn from the complainant on the said date.  And that, hence there could be no liability to pay any kind of damages.

 

(a)    However it is contended that it has written letter on 22.12.2015 to the OP-1 to furnish ATM switch center report, CCTV/DVSS footage, No excess cash certificate and ATM Engineer report.  And that the OP-1 had sent ATM S.S. report, cash verification report and on 11.07.2015 excess cash of Rs.8000/- was available in the ATM S10440008000.

 

(b)    So contending, dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

05.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence, Sri.G.Venkatesan, the Assistant Manager of OP-1 has submitted his affidavit evidence, Sri.Chandrashekhar, the Chief Manager of OP-2 has submitted his affidavit evidence.

 

06.   On 06.04.2016 on behalf of the OP-2 following 05 documents have been submitted:-

(i)       Letter written by OP-1 dated: 31.12.2015

(ii)      Journal record of OP-1

(iii)    Cash verification record dated: 30.12.2015 pertaining to the replenishment-cum-cash verification done on 11.07.2015 and Rs.8,000/- excess amount cash was found in the ATM S104400080002.

(iv)     Statement of account of complainant (2 sheets)

(v)      E-mail made by OP-2 and report sent to CMS ATM SBI GITC Belapur.

 

07.   The complainant, the OP-1 and the Op-2 have submitted their respective written arguments.  On 02.05.2016 as the learned counsel appearing for the OP-1 was absent heard the arguments as advanced by the complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the OP-2 only.

 

08.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether both these Ops could be held guilty of deficiency in service?

 

2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

 

3.  What order?       

 

09.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT 1 & 2:-          In the Affirmative.

 

 

POINT 3:                 As per the final order

                                for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT 1 & 2:-

10.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

(a)    Enigmatically the OP-1, though had the full knowledge and advantage that the said ATM installed as on 11.07.2015 as revealed by the OP-2 in the written version, could show excess cash of Rs.8,000/- available, did not come forward to plead in-fairness about the same.  Both these Ops are public sector banks.  The OP-2 could get the knowledge about excess cash of Rs.8,000/- remaining in the said ATM as on 11.07.2015 only on the information furnished by the Op-1.  Therefore both these Ops are guilty of deficiency in service, in as much as either of them or both of them ought to have responded favourably to the legitimate claim made by the complainant for re-crediting of Rs.6,000/- as on 09.07.2015 he could get cash of Rs.34,000/- only and not Rs.40,000/- completely for which he had made an attempt on the said day.  OP-1 is held responsible because the ATM installed had failed to release the full claimed amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant, whereas, in-spite of such a knowledge the OP-2 did not bother to re-credit the said sum of Rs.6,000/-.  So we observe that, both these Ops failed in their commitment to dealing quickly and sympathetically when things went wrong for this complainant being the consumer.

 

(b)    Hence we hold that Ops are jointly and severally liable to re-credit the said sum of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant with effect from 09.07.2015 itself together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the said date till the date of compliance.  Besides the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- as he has suffered both mentally and financially for no fault of him; together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 15.12.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization from both these Ops jointly and severally.    

 

 

POINT 3:-

11.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

(01)  For foregoing reasons the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/- against both these Ops as hereunder:-

(a)    Ops 1 & 2 both jointly and severally are held liable to re-credit a sum of Rs.6,000/- in the said SB account of the complainant bearing No.309875443871 as issued by the OP-2 together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 09.07.2015 till compliance.  Further these Ops are held jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant from 15.12.2015 till realization.

 

(b)    We grant time of one month to the OPs to comply order from the date of receipt of the same.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 03^rd DAY OF MAY 2016)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                           MEMBER                  PRESIDENT