KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 663/12

JUDGMENT DATED : 29/09/2012

PRESENT:

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA        : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT 

SMT. A. RADHA                             :  MEMBER

1.      Canara Bank,
Palarivattom Branch,
Ernakulam District,

          Represented by its Branch-

          Manager, Pin 682 025.

                                                          :  APPELLANTS

2.      Branch Manager, Canara Bank,

          Palarivattom Branch,

          Ernakulam District,

          Pin 682 025.

(By Advs. R.S. Kalkura & G.S. Kalkura)

Vs

V.P. Sasidharan, S/o. late Padmanabhan,

“Panchami”, Marottichuvadu Junction,

Edappally, Cochin – 24.                    :  RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT

           This fresh appeal came up for admission hearing before this Commission on this day. The appeal prefers from the order passed by the Forum below that the Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.4,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of the complaint till realization. The opposite parties shall also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

          2.      In brief, the complainant is having a case that he is an ATM card holder in his SB account No.2339101006046. On 15.02.2010 the complainant attempted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the ATM Kiosk  from the 1^st opposite party. How ever, the complainant neither received the amount nor any transaction slip. Again 24.02.2010, the complainant attempted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the very same ATM Kiosk. The result was the same. On verification it was found that an amount of Rs.4,000/- was debited from the account whereas infact the complainant had not withdrawn the said amount. Hence the complaint.

3.      The counsel for the appellant argued in detail on the basis of the grounds of appeal memorandum that the transaction under dispute were successful and there was no excess cash on the dates of transaction as is evident from the various records such as ATM transaction reports dated: 15.02.2010 and 24.2.2010 journal print out, cash verification report and switch log report etc. available with the opposite parties. The complainant failed to produce any document to show that the transactions under dispute were not successful as alleged. There is neither negligence nor deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          4..     We are seeing that the evidence adduced by the complainant examined as PW1, PW2 and 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on the part of the opposite parties.

          5.      This Commission heard in detail and perused the entire order passed by the Forum below. We are not seeing any apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below. It is legally sustainable and accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. We are seeing ever so many problems in the ATM transactions of money. The new generation is fully involved in the E-banking. The complainant is not in a position to adduce evidence in the ATM transactions. The ATM transaction is permissible to a holder of the ATM card anywhere in the world. There is no doubt that appellant is alone responsible for this deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. This appeal is disposed accordingly, we do so.

M.K. ABDULLA SONA         : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT 

A. RADHA           :  MEMBER

Da