Telangana

Khammam

CC/22/2016

T. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Narayana Rao, H.No.10-6-145/C, Burhanpuram, Khammam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Bus Station Complex, Khammam and Another - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Pittala Rambabu

12 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM

 

Dated this, the 12^th day of July,2018.

 

          CORAM:     1. Sri. P. Madhav Raja, _{B.Sc., M.Li.Sc., LL.M.,}– President

2. Sri. R. Kiran Kumar_{, B.Sc., LL.M.} – Member

     

C.C. No. 22/2016

Between:

 

T. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Narayana Rao,

Age: 47 years, Occu: Two wheeler Mechanic,

H.No.10-6-145/C, Burhanpuram, Khammam Town.        

        …Complainant

And

         

1. The Senior Branch Manager,

Andhra Bank, Bus Station Complex,

Khammam

 

2. The Manager,

H.D.F.C. Bank,

    Wyra Road, Khammam.                                   …Opposite Parties

 

 

This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Pittala Ram Babu, Advocate for Complainant; and of Sri K.Ravindranath Advocate for Opposite Party No.1; and of Sri N.Naveen Chaitanya, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order;

O R D E R

(Per Sri. R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

 

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

2.      The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is Customer of Opposite Party No.1 Bank having Savings Bank Account No.075010027001176. The complainant submitted that on 16-04-2015 he approached HDFC Bank ATM Machine and inserted ATM Card and entered an amount of Rs.5,000/- on screen board  to withdraw the money, the said ATM Machine was located at More Super Market at Burhanpuram, Khammam.  The complainant further submitted that to his surprise the cash was not dispensed, but it shows that the cash was withdrawn from ATM for an amount of Rs.5,000/-.   Immediately on 17-04-2015 the complainant reported the same in his own bank i.e. Opposite Party No.1.  At the same time the complainant updated his passbook where in it is revealed that the amount of Rs.5,000/- debited from his account and the entry  was made in the passbook.  The complainant further submitted that on his representation, the Opposite Party No.1 referred a letter to Opposite Party No.2 furnishing the details of card No.4688170750125652, transaction dt:16-04-2014, transaction amount of Rs.5,000/- and requested the Opposite Party No.2 to arrange CC Video Footage to the complainant.  The complainant further submitted even after receipt of the letter, the Opposite Party No.2 did not respond properly and Opposite Party No.2 did not heed the matter and behaving carelessness and gave answers carelessly to the complainant.  The complainant further submitted that it is the duty of the bank to oblige his duty and service to show the ATM CC footage to customer as per the guidelines.   The complainant got issued legal notice to Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2, even after issuance of same, the Opposite Parties failed to respond, hence the complainant filed this complaint.

 

3.       On behalf of the complainant, the complainant filed the following documents and the same were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-6.

 

Ex.A.1         :- is the original Passbook issued by the Andhra Bank, Bus

                       Station Complex, Khammam.

Ex.A.2:- is the photocopy of letter addressed by the Opposite Party

    No.1 to Opposite Party No.2, dt:01-06-2015.

Ex.A.3         :- is the photocopy of ATM Receipt dt:16-04-2015.

Ex.A.4:- is the photocopy of ATM Receipt dt:16-04-2015.

Ex.A.5:- is the Office copy of Legal notice dt:16-11-2015 issued to the

Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 along with postal receipts (2) in  

number and acknowledgements (2) in number.

Ex.A.6 is the photocopy of ATM Card.

 

  

4.      On receipt of notice the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed Counters.  In their Counters, the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that their bank is incorporated in Banking Companies Act 1980, carrying on business all over the India having Head Office at Hyderabad and it is rendering services to the public under different schemes as per the needs of the persons.  The Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that the complainant misrepresented the facts and filed the complaint against the Opposite Party No.1 wrongful gain and to defame the bank in the eye of public.  The Opposite Party No.1 admitted that the complainant is the customer of their bank.  The Opposite Party No.1 also admitted that the complainant approached their branch and informed regarding transaction held on 16-04-2015 on that Opposite Party No.1 addressed a letter to the Opposite Party No.2 on                04-05-2015 as per letter vide No.0750/4/21/04-05-2015.  And also addressed another letter on 01-06-2015 as per letter vide No.0750/4/49 to show the Video footage to the complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that they are no way concerned with the above transactions as there is no any contract between customer and the bank and also submitted that they are not liable to pay any amount or compensation to the complainant.   The Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that if any compensation liable to be paid to the complainant it is to be paid by the Opposite Party No.2 and also submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their part and there is cause of action to file complaint against them, as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 

 

5.      The Opposite Party No.2 in their counter submitted that the complainant approached the Forum with unclean hands and failed to disclose the essential and material facts, which are relevant.  The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that all the averments mentioned in the complaint by the complainant is false and complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is the Banking company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act,1956 and licensed as a bank under the provisions of Banking and Regulations Act,1949 having branch office at Khammam is inter-alia engaged in the business of granting/disbursing different types of products.  Further the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has at all times acted with all diligence and in good faith and with no intention to prejudice the interest  of the complainant as a customer to Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that the allegation of the complainant is that he operated the Andhra Bank  debit card at HDFC ATM for withdraw of Rs.5,000/-, surprisingly the cash of Rs.5,000/- was not dispensed.  The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 did not give any letter to them by seeking video footage of the said ATM Centre, especially on 16-04-2014 or 16-04-2015.   The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that the complainant never demanded in oral or written to the Opposite Party No.2 with regard to the video footage.   The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that there was a transaction on 16-04-2015, as per the said transaction an amount of Rs.5,000/- was withdrawn and also as per the electronic journal that there is no excess cash as on the date of 16-04-2015.   The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that the HDFC Bank is having tie up with Euro net to maintain HDFC ATM Centres and as per the Engineers Report, that there was no excess amount as on 16-04-2015.  The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that the video footage is not available with the Opposite Party No.2 as on the date of 16-04-2015 and also submitted that they will maintain the same only for (180) days.  The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that the relief’s sought for all other paragraphs in the complaint and the claims for submission of video footage by Opposite Party No.2 are absurd, vexatious  and not sustainable and therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought  from the Opposite Party No.2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the complaint.     

 

6.      The Opposite Party No.2 filed the following document and the same were marked as Exhibits B1 and B2.

 

Ex.B1:- is the Statement report ”Format of ATM Reconciliation”

   dt:16-04-2015.

Ex.B2:- is the photocopy of Cash Reconciliation and Replenishment Report

   dt:16-04-2015.

 

7.      The Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 filed written arguments.

8.      Heard oral arguments from both sides.

9.      Upon perusing the material papers available on record, now the point that arose for consideration is

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
2. To what relief?

 

 

 

 

POINT:-

 

          It is the case of the complainant is that he is the customer of opposite party No.1 Bank having savings account vide account No.075010027001176 and on 16-04-2015 he approached HDFC bank ATM machine and inserted ATM Card to withdraw an amount of Rs.5000/- from his account.  According to the complainant, to his surprise the cash was not dispensed, but it shows that the cash was withdrawn from his account, on that immediately on 17-04-2015 the complainant reported the same to his own bank i.e. opposite party No.1  and also the complainant updated his pass book wherein it is revealed that the amount of Rs.5000/- was debited from his account. According to the complainant on his representation, opposite party No.1 bank referred a letter to the opposite party No.2 bank for furnishing the details of card No.4688170750125652, transaction dt:16-04-2015 and requested the opposite party No.2 bank to arrange CC video footage.  Even after receipt of letter, the opposite party No.2 bank did not respond, did not heed the matter and even after receipt of legal notice failed to respond as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.

 

          From the documents and material available on record, it is not in dispute that the complainant he is having savings account in opposite party No.1 bank.  The opposite party No.1 in their counter submitted that as per the representation made by the complainant they addressed a letter to the opposite party No.2 bank vide 0750/4/21/04-05-2015 and also 0750/04/49/01-06-2015 to show the video footage of the complainant              dt.16-04-2015 to the complainant.  According to the opposite party No.2, they never received any letter dt. 16-04-2014 or 16-04-2015 from the opposite party No.1 bank by seeking video footage of the said ATM Centre and also submitted that they will maintain the video footage only for 180 days.  According to the opposite party No.2, their bank is having tie up with EURO Net to maintain HDFC ATM Centres and as per the Engineers report, there was no excess amount as on 16-04-2015 and to support their case they filed Exhibit B1 and B2 ”Format of ATM Reconciliation” and Cash Reconciliation and Replenishment Report.  And also  we observed that the opposite party No.1 failed to produce any acknowledgement for their correspondence with opposite party No.2 bank.  And also in IA.No.56/2018 in their counter opposite party No.1 submitted that due to inspection of records the acknowledgements were misplaced inspite of best efforts made by them, the records were not traced. 

                                                                        

 

          Without having document proof for production of CC video footage letter addressed by the opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 HDFC bank we cannot fasten any liability or deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2, as such this complaint is dismissed against the opposite party No.2.

 

 

          The opposite party No.1 bank admitted in their written version that the complainant had addressed a letter immediately, when the ATM machine failed to dispense the amount to the complainant.  It is the duty of the opposite party No.1 Bank to see the representation of the complaint made by their customers to its end.  But the case on hand, the opposite party No.1 bank failed to take steps to get the CC video footage from the opposite party No.2 bank and also failed to settle the grievance of the complainant.  As such  this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

 

10.   In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant with interest at @9% per annum from the date of complaint to till its realization.  And also awarded Rs.1000/- towards cost of the litigation. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The complainant against the opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 12^th day of July,2018).

 

 

              Member                        President

District Consumer Forum, Khammam.

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

 

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties

None                                                                       None

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties

 

Ex.A1:-	is the original Passbook issued by the Andhra Bank, Bus Station Complex, Khammam.	Ex.B1:-	is the Statement report ”Format of ATM Reconciliation”             dt:16-04-2015.
Ex.A2:-	is the photocopy of letter addressed by the Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.2, dt:01-06-2015.	Ex.B2:-	is the photocopy of Cash Reconciliation and Replenishment Report dt:16-04-2015.
Ex.A3:-	is the photocopy of ATM Receipt dt:16-04-2015.
Ex.A4:-	is the photocopy of ATM Receipt dt:16-04-2015.
Ex.A5:-	is the Office copy of Legal notice dt:16-11-2015 issued to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 along with postal receipts (2) in number and acknowledgements (2) in number.
Ex.A6:-	is the photocopy of ATM Card.

 

 

Member                 President

                   District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.