<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 06th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1882/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Rohit Kumar Jayasmal,S/o Vishnudev Prasad Jaiswal,Aged 23 years,Residing at No.1D, 4th ‘A’ Cross, Maruthinagar,Madiwala,Bangalore – 560 068.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,Vijaya Bank,Mulki Sundarram Shetty Nagar,Bilekahally,Bangalore – 560 076.Advocate – Sri.T.S.Venkatesh<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.7,500/- along with compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the S.B Account holder at OP Bank and OP has issued him the ATM card. Up to 30.04.2008 he has no problem with the OP with regard to the said account as well as the use of ATM card. To his utter shock and surprise on 30.04.2008 he noticed in between 6.57 a.m to 7.00 a.m an amount of Rs.7,500/- was drawn on the base of his ATM card on 4 occasions. Actually complainant has not withdrawn the said amount. On going through the Bank statement he noticed the mistake, immediately he contacted the OP to rectify the said mistake. OP officials told him that there is some defect in the computer system and they will do the needful. But thereafter some how OP failed to heed to its promise. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant even by addressing a letter on 21.05.2008 went in vain. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. As such he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has drawn the said amount by using the ATM card. If the said ATM card is used by third party for the withdrawal of the said amount, it is all because of the carelessness and negligence of the complainant. Complainant has not maintained the secrecy of the said ATM. Without dialing pin code – secrete number amount can’t be withdrawn. Complainant is do aware of the said fact. But still he has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. The account statement generated through the computer clearly speaks to the withdrawal of the said amount so also the Bank account noted in the passbook. So there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The other allegations are baseless. At no point of time OP officials have conceded the said mistake stating that it is occurred due to the defect in the computer. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. The fact that complainant is the S.B account holder of OP since 04.01.2008 and OP issued him the ATM card is not at dispute. As admitted by the complainant himself he has been using the said ATM since then. On 30.04.2008 between 6.57 a.m to 7.00 a.m 4 transactions have taken place namely an amount of Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.3,000/- another Rs.3,000/-, in all Rs.7,500/- is withdrawn by some stranger. He came to know of the same when he checked his passbook. Immediately he brought the said fact to the notice of the OP within one week. Unfortunately OP did not heed to his request and demand in enquiring the said complaint.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that OP officials admitted that there is a defect in the computer system and they will verify and check it up. For this contention and allegation basically there is no proof. OP has denied this allegation in toto. Thereafter complainant wrote a letter to the OP to rectify the said mistake on 21.05.2008. Copy of the letter is produced. OP replied the same on 27.05.2008. Reply is also produced.<br /> 8. As against this it is specially contended by the OP that the transactions is computer generated. Without insertion of the ATM card by card holder and without inserting the pass word and pin code number no amount will be withdrawn. If there is a mis use of the ATM card it is only because of the carelessness of the complainant. Complainant in all probability must have revealed the pin as well as pass word to some stranger, for that OP can’t be blamed. Details of the transactions clearly speaks to the fact how much amount is withdrawn, at what time.<br /> <br /> 9. Of course the said 4 transactions are continuous that too with in a span of difference of one minute. The computer generated transactions speaks to the withdrawal of the said amount and the same is incorporated in his pass book. We find there is substance in the defence set out by the OP. The burden of proof is on the complainant to establish that without using of his ATM card the said amount has been withdrawn. To withdraw the said amount if it is a single transaction there would have been some meaning but when continuous 4 transactions have taken place we don’t find truth in the allegations of the complainant. In all probability either the complainant himself or person known to him must have used the ATM card and withdrawn the amount. Possibility of withdrawing the said amount within one minute rather can’t be ruled out. It is possible.<br /> <br /> 10. Hence for these reasons complaint allegations appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 06th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />