Karnataka

Kolar

CC/18/2016

Sri.V.Krishnappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.M.Niranjanaswamy

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 16/04/2016

Date of Order: 16/08/2016

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

 

Dated: 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016

PRESENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB… MEMBER (IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT)

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

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 18 OF 2016

Sri.V.Krishnappa,

S/o. Venkatappa,

R/at: 48/2, Jayanagar,

Kolar Town.

 

(Rep. by Sri.C.M.Niranjana Swamy, Advocate)             ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Senior Branch Manager,

(Govt. Of India Undertaking)

Andhra Bank, K.R. Puram Branch,

BANGALORE.

(Rep. by Sri.E.K.Somasekhar, Advocate)

 

2) The Manager, Andhra Bank,

Zonal Office, Sanjaya Gandhi Hospital

Road, ‘C’ Block, Jayanagar,

BANGALORE.

 

(Since placed Ex-parte)                                    …. Opposite Parties.

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER:

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter in short, it is referred as “the act”) has sought, reliefs against these OPs jointly and severally, to pay the amount of Rs.24,050/- towards deficiency of service rendered by the Ops along with interest and also a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and expenditures and any other reliefs as the Forum deems fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, he is having account bearing No.10701100006668 at Pragathi Gramina Bank, Kolar, and he is also having Debit Card ATM/Card for the same account bearing Card No.6073895701008619.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, on 21.06.2015 while he was travelling in KSRTC but at about 7.00 PM without his knowledge he lossed (stolen by some unknown) his purse, the debit card/ATM card was also in it.  And on the same day night between 11.30 to 12.00 O’clock, there were debits of cash a sum of Rs.24,050/- from his account by using his said ATM card at ATM counter located in T.C. Palya, K.R.Puram, Bangalore.  He made complaint to police and also informed the same to OP also.

 

(c)    Further it is contended that, on 25.06.2015 he made requisition to OP to provide C.C. TV footage – W-1491002 & 51 ANBN 28 C.C. TV camera footage for the days 21.06.2015 and 22.06.2015, along with DD of required fee of Rs.1,000/-, along with copies of pass sheet, letter from R.O., Kolar and also letter from Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Kolar Branch, Kolar.  After lapse of 02 months on 26.08.2015 OP had replied by returning the DD amount by stating as below:-

“we tried to retrieve the CCTV footage of our ATM counter.  But the service engineer informed that, the footages are not recorded in the hard disk.  Again we tried to retrieve the images from ATM machine.  But the transaction camera images are also not available”.

 

(d)    Further it is contended that, Ops have rendered deficiency in service to the public, for not maintaining the CC TV cameras.  On 13.01.2016 he got issued legal notice through his learned counsel, same was duly served on OP-1, for which OP-1 had given frivolous reply.  So contending, the complainant has come up with the complaint on hand with above set out reliefs.

 

(e)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted bellow mentioned documents:-

(i) Copy of letter dated: 22.06.2015

(ii) Copy of complaint dated: 25.06.2015

(iii)Copy of DD

(iv) Copy of letter dated: 25.06.2015

(v) Copy of letter dated: 25.06.2015

(vi) Copy of letter dated: 29.06.2015

(vii) Copy of ATM transaction sheet

(viii) Copy of letter dated: 26.08.2015

(ix) Copy of legal notice dated: 08.01.2016

(x) Copy of postal receipt and postal acknowledgement

(xi) Copy of reply notice dated: 01.02.2016.

 

03.   In response to the notices served the Ops, OP-1 has put its appearance through his learned counsel and has submitted written version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.

 

(a)    It is contention of the OP-1 that, the complaint is not maintainable, since he is not the account holder as there is no relationship of banker and customer between complanant and Ops, thus prayed for rejection on this ground.

 

(b)    It is contended that, para-2 of the complaint about the complainant is the account holder of Pragathi Gramina Bank, Kolar, bearing account No.10701100006668 and ATM card/Debit Card of the same bearing card No.6073895701008619 admits, as it might be true but not with in the knowledge of OP-1.

 

(c)    It is contended that by admitting withdrawal of cash of RS.24,051/- on 21.06.2015 at its ATM counter installed in T.C. Palya, K.R. Puram, Bangalore.  And denied averments of para-3 of the complaint as, journey of complaint in bus on 21.06.2015 and theft of his purse along with ATM card and also specifically denied about the lodging of complaint to police by the complainant.

 

(d)    It is contended that, by denying allegations made in Para-4, Para-5 of the complaint and admits averments made in Para-3 with regard to request for C.C. TV footage and reply by the OP. 

 

(e)    It is further specifically contends that, the complainant is employee of Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank, Kolar, and he has not disclosed it anywhere and also he is very much aware of all the rules and regulations of ATM card.  And ATM equipment does not accept anything except ATM card and PIN number.  And PIN number would be only in the knowledge of ATM Card Holder or any of his representative.  If at all theft is true he had not been complaint to cyber crime police station immediately and also he had not blocked the ATM card by using toll free number which is very much in the knowledge of complainant being bank employee.

 

(f)     Further it contends that, he had not yet been given complaint to cyber crime police station, which is the only authority to investigate the matter and check the footage even if the footage is provided, it is not possible to trace the person who withdrew the money, since he had not given complaint to Cyber Crime Police Station. 

 

(g)    Further it contends that, complainant instead of block the ATM card he has further kept it open.  Thus, due to utmost negligence of complainant is the reason for it, and due to technical power problem only C.C. TV footages were not recorded which was beyond control of OP-1 and thus OP-1 has no way deficiency in service and so prays for dismissal. 

 

(h)    Along with written version learned counsel appearing for OP-1 has submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i)       Letter dated: 01.07.2015 by Pragathi Gramina Bank, Kolar Branch.

(ii)      Letter dated: 29.06.2015 to Pragathi Gramina Bank, R.O. Kolar.

(iii)    Letter dated: 25.06.2015 by the Chief Manager, Pragathi Gramina Bank.

(iv)     Letter dated: 25.06.2015 issued by V.Krishnappa

(v)      Legal Notice dated: 08.01.2016

(vi)     Reply notice dated: 01.02.2016

(vii)    Letter given by Sriteknix dated: 19.08.2015

(viii)   Letter dated: 26.08.2015 given by Andhra Bank, K.R. Puram, Bangalore.

 

04.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet dated: 05.05.2016, the OP-2 came to be placed exparte.

 

05.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief on 09.06.2016.

 

06.   On 09.06.2016, on behalf of the OP-1 Sri.V.Nizar, the Senior Branch Manager has put in his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.

 

07.   On 16.06.2016 the learned counsel appearing for the OP-1 has submitted written arguments.

 

08.   On 23.06.2016 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted written arguments.

 

09.   Heard oral arguments as advanced by both of the learned counsel appearing for both sides and on 09.08.2016 the learned counsel appearing for complainant has submitted below mentioned 02 documents and 01 citation:-

(i) Guidelines in ATM security

(ii) Letter issued to the Manager, Pragathi Gramina Bank, Kolar.

(iii) III (2015) CPJ 135 (NC).

 

10.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(1)   Whether there is any nexus between the complainant and Ops as Banker and Customer?

 

(2) Whether it could be held that both the Ops are guilty of deficiency in service?

 

(3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought?

(4) What order?

 

11.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are :-

POINT 1:-                In the Affirmative

POINT 2:-        In the Negative

 

POINT 3:-                In the Negative.

 

POINT 3:-                As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT 1 :-

12.   The specific contention of OP-1 is that, there is no relationship between complainant and Ops as Banker and Customer.  Simply because of not having account at Ops bank will not meet any purpose as pleaded by OP-1.

 

(a)    Although there are different kinds of banks established and all the banks are having core banking system with each other and thus given facility to withdraw the amount in any bank ATM counter even if not having account in the particular drawee ATM counter Bank.

 

(b)    In this particular case the amount was withdrawn from the Ops ATM counter.  And that, the said ATM equipment accepted the ATM card of other Bank account, by giving this facility to withdrew the amount even for any other bank account holder ATM card.  Thus, no doubt, the relationship existing between complainant and Ops as a banker and customer, thus, the complainant is definitely a consumer.

 

POINTS 2 & 3:-

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

 

(a)    On perusal of documents and evidence of both parties, it is clear that complainant himself being manager of Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank had not taken any steps immediately when he came to know about the said theft and withdrawal of amount from his account by using his ATM card.

 

(b)    The complainant had lossed his purse along with ATM card on 21.06.2015 at about 7.00 PM.  And on 25.06.2015 he wrote a requisition letter to OP-1 for C.C. TV footage.  Almost 03 days delay.  And his account was freezed on 29.06.2015 and de-freezed on 01.07.2015, 08 days delay in freezing of the ATM card/account from the date of incident, again within 02 days his account was de-freezed. 

 

(c)    Being a Manager himself, what prevented him to cause such delay in freezing of ATM card and also apply in for C.C. TV footage and to give complaint to cyber crime police, which is competent authority to investigate and till now there is no such complaint has given to cyber crime police in this regard.

 

(d)    As soon as receiving of complainant’s requisition OP-1 had taken necessary steps to retrieve the C.C. TV footages for 21.06.2015 to 22.06.2015.  According to technician the C.C. TV footages were not recorded on that time was due to technical power problem.  It is beyond Ops control and thus Ops were not deficient in service.

 

(e)    The principles enunciated in III (2015) CPJ 135 (NC) submitted by the learned counsel appearing for complainant is not applicable to this case on hand because in this case the C.C. TV equipment itself was damaged due to power problem and not recorded any footages.  Ops were tried to retrieve the same but due to this problem they cannot get it.  Hence we have not considered this citation.

 

(f)     In this circumstances, we are finding that there was no negligence of any kind on the part of the Ops, they have done their duty promptly.  In fact, there was negligence on the part of the complainant himself, in not taking necessary steps immediately as soon as he noticed the said theft.  And also in not keeping PIN number allotted to him in secret and had not blocked the ATM card immediately and also not complained to cyber crime police, when such being the negligence of complainant itself, the contention of him as Ops were deficient in service is something very strange and erroneous.

 

POINT 4:-

14.   Hence we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

(01)  For foregoing reasons, the complaint stands Dismissed, however with a direction to both the parties to bear their own costs.

(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 16^th DAY OF AUGUST 2016)

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                              MEMBER (IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT)