BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

                                              SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER                                    

Thursday, 19^th January 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  42 / 2016

Gongadisetty Ramudu, S/o G. Ganganna,

Hindu, aged about 70 years, Pensioner,

APSPDCL, R/o D.No. 4/425, Nagarajupet,

Kadapa – 516001.                                                               ………… Complainant.

Vs.

1.  The Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch,

     7 Roads, Kadapa – 516001.

2.  The Manager, State bank of Hyderabad,

     D.No. 5/485, Main Branch, Near Chennur Bus Stand,

     Kadapa – 516 001.                                                        …..  Opposite parties.

This complaint coming for final hearing on 05-1-2017 in the presence of Sri J. Balaji Murthy, Advocate for Complainant and Sri S.S.D. Ramaswamy, Advocate for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),

1.                The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 & 14 R/w section 2 (1) (c) (III) and (G) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite party No. 1 to pay an amount of              Rs. 10,000/- which is in shortage due to the failure of the ATM device and debited to his account and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for failure of the Opposite parties to replace and harassed him.

2.                The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Complainant is having S.B. Account No. 10844933602 and ATM card No. 6220180083000356788 with O.P.1 since 35 to 40 years and is a pensioner drawing pension after his retirement as Accounts Officer in the office of the Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, APSPDCL, Kadapa.  His monthly pension amounts are being deposited in his S.B. Account with O.P.1 every month by drawing officer.  As per RBI orders cash can be drawn with ATM card in any banks of ATM’s. 

3.                While so, on 10-12-2015 Complainant operated his ATM card for withdrawal of cash in O.P.2 ATM located at Nagarajupet main road, Kadapa and withdraw limit is of Rs. 10,000/- each as furnished as mentioned below.

Since, in 5^th transaction i.e. 2522 cash was not generated but debited Rs. 10,000/- to his S.B. Account and reversal into his account is not found, he made a complaint to O.P.1 on 11-12-2015, 16-12-2105 and 23-12-2105 for reversal entry, but the problem was not solved.  He approached banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad on 14-2-2106 in complaint No. 201516009003625 but the banking Ombudsman closed his complaint on 22-3-2016 stating that the matter requires detailed investigation which is in purview of banking Ombudsman scheme 2006 and rejected the complaint with observation of Complainant can approach any other forum for redressal of his grievance.  Hence, the complaint for the defective service of both banks and he lost of Rs. 10,000/- by not receiving cash from ATM of O.P.2 in transaction No. 2522 as shown above.  Therefore,  the complaint for the above reliefs.

4.                Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed separate counters. 

5.                Opposite party No. 1 admitted the Complainant is having S.B. Account and ATM card as pleaded with their bank and can withdraw amount from any ATM center of any bank and also admitted the Complainant made transactions on 10-12-2105 through ATM but denied the Complainant not generating the amount vide transaction No. 2522 on 10-12-2105. 

6.                It is further averred transaction No. 2522, dt. 10-12-2015 is successful as per electronic journal log of ATM of O.P.2 bank and the same was informed to  Complainant. Despite that the Complainant approached Ombudsman and Ombudsman rejected his complaint.  Since, the transition No. 2522 relating to the Complainant dt. 10-12-2015 is successful and Complainant received amount through ATM maintained by O.P.2, there is no defective service of both banks and complaint is false, frivolous and Complainant has not lost Rs. 10,000/-.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7.                Opposite party No. 2 filed counter denying the allegations.  Further contended that this O.P.2 has verified electronic journal log of ATM dt. 10-12-2015 and found transaction reference No. 2522 relating to the Complainant and it was found successful.  This O.P. informed the same to the O.P.1 as per electronic journal log of ATM of O.P.2 bank and no excess cash was found and the transaction 2522 was successful and Complainant has received amount of Rs. 10,000/-.  Thus there is no defective service on the part of O.P.2.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties as pleaded by Complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled Rs. 10,000/- from O.P.1 and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation as prayed?
3. To what relief?

9.                No oral evidence has been placed by the parties.  But  on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A9 documents are marked and on behalf of Opposite parties  Exs. B1 & B2 are filed.       

10.              Heard arguments on both sides and carefully perused the pleadings and documentary evidence placed by the parties.

11.              Point Nos. 1 & 2. Learned counsel for Complainant contended that the ATM transaction No. 2522 dt. 10-12-2015 by Complainant to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- cash was not generated but Rs. 10,000/- was debited to his S.B. Account and no reversal entry was found in his account and in spite of he brought the same to the notice of O.P.1 and not paid the amount by crediting to his S.B. Account and Ombudsman also rejected his complaint and advised to approach the forum.  Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for Rs. 10,000/- for ATM Transaction and                Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service from O.P.1.  He also contended that the documents Exs. A1 to A9 proved his transactions and not generating the amount of                  Rs. 10,000/- on 10-12-2015. 

12.              Per contra learned counsel for O.P.1 & 2 strenuously contended that except oral submission of Complainant that cash of Rs. 10,000/- was not generated on 10-12-2015 vide transaction No. 2522 no other reliable evidence has been placed by him.  So his contention cannot be upheld. He also contended on verification of electronic log journal of ATM dt. 10-12-2105 regarding transaction 2522 of Complainant, it was found successful and as per Ex. B2 also no excess cash was found in the ATM machine and the same was brought to the notice of the Complainant on his complaint.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence, the compliant is liable to be dismissed. 

13.              It is the case of Complainant that on 10-12-2105, he operated his ATM card five times to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- each time and in 1^st and 2^nd transactions he received Rs. 10,000/- cash on each time and 3^rd time he did not received cash of                Rs. 10,000/- but debited to his S.B. account and 4^th time Rs. 10,000/- reverse entry was made and credit was given to his S.B. Account for Rs. 10,000/-.  In 5^th time regarding transaction No. 2522 when he tried to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- cash was not generated but debited to his S.B. Account, however, no reversal entry was found in his S.B. Account.  So the sole grievance of Complainant is that the transaction dt.                      10-12-2105 vide transaction No. 2522 though he tried to withdraw cash of Rs. 10,000/- from O.P.2 ATM cash was not generated, still Rs. 10,000/- was debited to his account and in spite of his request to the bank i.e. O.P.1 no reversal entry was made to his account.  Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties.    

14.              It is the consistent case of Opposite parties that the Complainant had withdrawn the cash from O.P.2 ATM and the transaction was successful vide transaction No. 2522 dt. 10-12-2105, as per electronic journal log of ATM of O.P.2 and the transaction was successful and on physical verification also no excess cash was found in the machine on that day. 

15.              Though the Complainant filed Exs. A1 to A9 they shows only that he has S.B. Account in O.P.1 bank and he had withdrawn amount from ATM and he approached the ombudsman and ombudsman rejected his claim advising him that this matter requires detailed investigation, elaborator documentary and oral evidence.  The Complainant except his oral submission that he has not received cash while operating his ATM card on 10-12-2015 vide transaction No. 2522 but not placed any other evidence to show that cash was not generated and a false debit entry was made to his account.  On the other hand the Opposite parties filed Ex. B1 & B2 to show that the transaction dt.10-12-2015 vide transaction No. 2522 is successful and no excess cash was found in machine on 10-12-2105 to 11-12-2105.   

16.              The Complainant who has come to the court has to prove his case that he has not generated the amount from ATM and false debit entry was made to his account for Rs. 10,000/- through not received cash of Rs. 10,000/-. Except the Complainant’s oral statement no other evidence has been placed by him to prove the above aspect.   On the other hand the documentary evidence Exs. B1 & B2 placed by Opposite parties clearly proved that the transaction 2522 dt. 10-1-2015 for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- through ATM of O.P.2 is successful and no excess cash was found in ATM machine from 10-12-2015 to 11-12-2105.  Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention of Complainant that Rs. 10,000/- cash was not generated vide transaction No. 2522 on 10-12-2105 as pleaded by him and we hold that the Complainant failed to prove the same and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 & 2 and Complainant is not entitled for reliefs claimed against the Opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered against the Complainant.  

17.              Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances no costs.

                   Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 19^th January 2017

MEMBER                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant:         NIL                                             For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex. A1                   Complaint to the SBI,main branch, Kadapa letter dt. 23-12-2105.

Ex. A2                   Record of ATM withdrawals.

Ex. A3                   Complaint to the SBI, nodal officers, dt. 5-2-2106.

Ex. A4                   Complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, dt. 14-2-2106.

Ex. A5                   Acknowledgement of Banking Ombudsman, dt. 17—2106.

Ex. A6                   Closure of my complaint by the banking ombudsman dt. 22-3-2106.

Ex. A7                   Pass book

Ex. A8                   Reminder letter dt. 7-3-2016.

Ex. A9                   Reminder letter dt. 7-4-2016.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties: -  

Ex. B1                   Complainant lodging complaint dt. 15-12-2106.

Ex. B2                   P/c of no excess cash certificate issued by CMS into systems,

                   dt. 10-10-2016.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

                            1) Sri J. Balaji Murthy, Advocate for Complainant

                            2) Sri S.S.D. Ramaswamy, Advocate for Opposite parties.

B.V.P