Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/2/2017

Sri B.N.Raghunath, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,State Bank of Mysore - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.DheerandraPrasad.c.t

12 Jan 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:04.01.2017

DISPOSED      ON:12.01.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 2/2017

 

DATED:  12^th JANUARY 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT	B.N. Raghunath, C.P.C, Lokayuktha Police Station, Chitradurga-577501.     (Rep by Sri. Dheerendraprasad. C.T, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Molakalmuru, Chitradurga.   2. The Manager, Karnataka Bank, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri.L. Madhusudhan, Advocate for OP No.2)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to credit a sum of Rs.9,000/-, Rs.10,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is a customer of OP No.1 Bank and having SB Account bearing No.64011158980 and also having ATM facilities.  On 15.04.2016 at about 12-55 PM tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.9,000/- from Karnataka Bank ATM situated in front of SJM Dental College, Chitradurga.  The said machine remitted the said amount as transaction failed.  The complainant approached the OP and made a complaint.  In this regard OP has given letter to the OP No.1 on 12.07.2016 and stated that, the amount has been withdrawn from the Karnataka Bank ATM and the same has been deducted from his account.  Again complainant visited the Karnataka Bank and approached the Bank Manager and told that, he was not withdrawn the amount from the ATM.  But, the OP No.2 has not given proper reply to him.  Complainant has received the information from OP No.1 on 27.04.2016 that, the amount has been deducted from the account through Karnataka Bank ATM.  Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs on 25.11.2016 and the same has been duly served to the OPs on 30.11.2016.  The cause of action for this complaint arose to the complainant when the complainant has withdrawn the amount from the Karnataka Bank ATM.  The complainant asked the OP No.2 to produce the CC TV footage of the place where the complainant tried to withdraw the amount but, the OP No.2 failed to produce the same.     Therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs and prayed for allow the complaint. 

3.     After service of notice to the OP, one Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and filed version and Sri.L.Madhusudhan, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and filed version.

According to the version filed by OP No.1, the complaint    filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed limine.  The OP No.1 has denied all the allegations made by the complainant against it and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is admitted that, the complainant is having SB A/c in their Bank at Molakalmuru.  But the complainant tried to withdraw the amount from Karnataka Bank ATM and he get the message showing that the amount has been withdrawn from his account.  The OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service for non-withdrawing of the amount of Rs.9,000/- as the complainant has withdrawn the amount from the ATM of OP No.2, it is the mistake of the ATM of OP No.2 and it is not the mistake of OP No.1.  OP No.1 admits that, the complainant has withdrawn the amount of Rs.9,000/- from the ATM of OP No.2.  But, according to the complainant, the amount has not been received from the ATM of OP No.2.  The complainant asked in his complaint that, OP No.2 has to produce the CC TV footage but, the OP No.2 has failed to produce the same.  It is the OP No.2 to settle the claim of the complainant.  Hence, the OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service in not settling the claim of the complainant. 

As per the version of OP No.2, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  The allegations made by the complainant in his complaint are all denied as false and put to strict proof of the same.  It is true that, the complainant has done a transaction in the ATM of OP No.2 on 15.04.2016 and withdrawn an amount of Rs.9,000/- from his SB A/c maintained at OP No.1, SBM, Molakalmuru Branch.  Even though the complainant withdrawn amount from ATM with an ulterior motive for his unlawful gain, the complainant filed this complaint against OP No.2.  Further it is false to say that, ATM machine did not pay the amount as transaction failed.  On 15.04.2016 at about 12:55:39 PM, the complainant has withdrawn the cash of Rs.9,000/- from OP No.2 ATM and the transaction was successful.  Therefore, the Manager, Customer Care Centre, Bangalore by a letter confirmed the transaction made by the complainant with card his No.45916600010167284 with RR No.713864 on 15.04.2016 is a successful transaction and no excess cash found in the said ATM on 16.04.2016 pertaining to this transaction.  They have also attached cash withdrawn chart which shows the successful transaction.  As per balance enquiry report, there was no excess cash on 16.04.2016 nor shortage of amount.  Therefore, the complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.9,000/- on 15.04.2016 from the ATM of OP No.2.  Hence, OP No.2 has not committed any deficiency of service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-5 were got marked and closed his side.   OP No.1 has examined one Sri.Pramod. B. Ilamkar as DW-1 and closed their side.  OP No.2 has examined one Sri. T.K. Manjunath, Manager and PA Holder of Karnataka Bank as DW-2 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-3 documents and closed their side. 

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP No.2 has committed deficiency of service and failed to encash the amount from the ATM?

 (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, complainant is having SB account with the OP No.1.  On 15.04.2016 at about 12-55 PM, the complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.9,000/- from the OP No.2 ATM situated at infront of SJM Dental College, Chitradurga.  But the complainant never received any amount from the said ATM.  Again the complainant approached OP No.1 and enquired as to whether the amount of Rs.9,000/- was withdrawn from his account or not.  OP No.1 told that, the amount of Rs.9,000/- has been deducted in his account. But the complainant was not received any amount from the ATM of OP No.2.  The complainant approached the OP No.2 and asked about the non-withdrawal of the amount from the ATM.  But, OP No.2 says that, he has withdrawn the amount through ATM and the transaction was successful.  But, the complainant has not received any amount.  Here the OP No.1 is only a Bank having the account, the OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service.  The complainant has withdrawn the amount from the ATM of OP No.2.  Advocate for complainant has filed an application before this Forum and requested the OP No.2 to produce CC TV footage before this Forum but, the OP No.2 failed to produce the CC TV footage and the OP No.2 Advocate says that, after the lapse of three months, the CC TV footage will be lapsed.  As per the documents produced by the complainant and OP No.2, it clearly shows that, the complainant has not withdrawn the amount from the ATM of OP No.2.

9.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OP No.2, which clearly shows that, the complainant is having SB A/c with the OP No.1 and on 15.04.2016 he tried to withdraw the amount from the ATM of OP No.2.  But, on that day, the complainant has not received any amount from the ATM of OP No.2.  The complainant has approached OP No.1 and 2 as to know whether the amount has been deducted from his account.  OP No.1 says that, an amount of Rs.9,000/- has been deducted from his account.  But, the complainant has not received any amount from the ATM of OP No.2.  The documents clearly shows that, the mistake is only with the OP No.2 not with the OP No.1. OP No.2 is held liable to pay the amount of Rs.9,000/- to the complainant.  But the OP No.2 says at the time of arguments that, the complainant has withdrawn the amount of Rs.9,000/- from the ATM of OP No.2 as per the report made by the Customer Care Centre, Bangalore.  But, the complainant has not received any amount. But, OP No.2 has failed to produce the CC TV footage before this Forum to prove that, the complainant has withdrawn the amount.  Hence, it is purely a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly in affirmative to the complainant.

 

 

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

        The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,000/- to the complainant.

It is further ordered that the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- costs of the proceedings.

Complaint as against OP No.1 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

          (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 12/01/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

 

                                     

          MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri.Pramod. B. Ilamkar by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2:- Sri. T.K. Manjunath, by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Letter written by the complainant to OP No.1
02	Ex-A-2:-	Letter dated 12.07.2016 by OP No.1
03	Ex.A-3:-	Copy of complaint details
04	Ex.A-4:-	Legal Notice dated 24.11.2016
05	Ex.A-5:-	Postal receipts and postal acknowledgements

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Switch Report
02	Ex.B-2:-	Certifying letter with report
03	Ex.B-3:-	Balance maintenance extract

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**