IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 31st day of March, 2017
Filed on 24.07.2013
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.235/2013
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Padmakshan 1. The Chief Manager
Muriyaykkatharayil Thriveni House S.B.T., Chengannur
Neduvaramkode P.O.
Cheriyanadu Village 2. Sri. George P. Cheriyan
Chengannur Taluk Asst. General Manager
Alappuzha District Office of Banking Ombudsman (By Adv. P.C. Dileepkumar) Reserve Bank of India
Thiruvananthapuram
3. The Branch Manager
S.B.T. , Chengannur
(By Adv. C. Parameswaran – for opposite parties 1 & 3)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
On 31.01.2012 an amount of Rs.75,000/- is credited with the account of the complainant and on 1.2.2012, the complainant tried to withdraw the amount of Rs.100/- and Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- from the ATM counter situated at the ground floor of the S.B.T. Chengannur Branch. But being the complainant failed to receive the amount he again tried to get the amount from the ATM counter situated at the 1st floor and in that attempt, he succeeded in withdrawing Rs.100/- and Rs.10,000/-, but he did not receive Rs.20,000/- from both the counters. But the complainant was shocked to see that the said amount of Rs.20,000/- is deducted from his account. He informed the matter to the opposite party and filed a written complaint to the opposite party. But so far no proceedings were initiated from the part of the opposite party. Since the opposite party failed to initiate any legal proceedings, the complainant filed a complaint before the Chengannur Police, but no legal action was taken by the Police authorities. Thereafter the 2nd opposite party replied that the complainant had not withdrawn the amount of Rs.20,000/- and from the visuals of the CCTV installed in the counter, they understand that someone around 20 years of age is seen to have taken the money and he was advised to approach before the Forum for the redressal of grievance. Even though the complainant had complained to the Bank authorities and Police at the proper time itself nothing has been done by them to redress the grievance of the complainant, who is an age old citizen and a retired military person. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The complainant is an account holder of the opposite party bank and is provided with an ATM card for enabling the withdrawal of the cash from the account. The complainant was frequently using the ATM for withdrawal and has on the day in issue ie. on 1.2.2012 made three successful withdrawal through the opposite party’s ATM at Chengannur for the following sums:-
- Rs.100/- through ATM SIOB 700085001
- Rs.20,000/- through ATM SIOB 700085001
- Rs.10,000/- through ATM SIOB 700085003
Subsequently the complainant had complained to the opposite party that the withdrawal referred to under item (b) above comprising Rs.20,000/- was not received by him. The opposite party has verified the journal transactions and found the withdrawal to be successful. Moreover, the video footage of the transaction evidence that complainant was accompanied by a third party in the ATM transaction room. The opposite party has handed over the video footage to Police on 16.6.2012, on the complaint made by the complainant. While the complainant admits to be an experienced ATM user, the complainant made a fatal mistake in permitting a third party to enter the cabin who might have parted with the money. Therefore the opposite party is not liable to pay the money. The claim of the complainant that the opposite party bank is liable to return the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant is per-se false and the said contention appears to have been made with the oblique intentions. The allegation that the opposite party bank did not consider the complaint of the complainant is false and hence denied. The opposite party bank had afforded all support including handing over of relevant data to the investigating authorities to detect the culprit who had looted the alleged sum from the complainant based on the complaint lodged by the complainant in the matter. The complaint lodged by the complainant is under investigation by the local police and hence no separate complaint was lodged by the opposite party in the matter. The complainant suppressing the material facts from the notice of this Hon’ble Forum has laid the instant complaint with the ulterior motive to extract unconscionable amount from the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1. One document produced which marked as Ext.A1. Opposite party was examined as RW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. According to the complainant on 31.1.2012 he tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.100/- and 1Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- from the ATM counter situated at the ground floor of the SBT Chengannur Branch, but being failed to receive the amount, he again tried to get the amount from the ATM counter situated at the first floor and in that attempt he succeeded in withdrawing Rs.100/- and Rs.10,000/-, but he did not receive Rs.20,000/- from the counter. Thereafter complainant came to see that an amount of Rs.20,000/- is deducted from his account. According to the complainant, he lost his money due to the default in service of the opposite party. Opposite party filed version stating that they have verified the journal transaction and found the withdrawal as successful. Apart from that the video footage of the transaction evidences that complainant was accompanied by a third party in the ATM transaction room. In order to substantiate the contention of the opposite party, they produced CCTV image of the disputed transaction and it marked as Ext.B2. According to the opposite party, the complainant who had permitted another in the ATM cabin during the transaction is responsible for the consequences. On verifying the Ext.B2 CCTV images we came to see that a third party was accompanying the complainant for withdrawing the amount from the ATM counter. But on verifying the CCTV footage in which the image of the complainant can be identified and he is also accompanying by another person. During the argument stage, the counsel of the complainant argued that it was not the complainant who was seen in the CCTV images and opposite parties are trying to create a fabricated story. In this case, opposite party produced the – journal entry which marked as Ext.B1. As per Ext.B1 the response code ‘000’ and it shows that the transaction is successful. Ext.B2 the CCTV footage shows that a third party is accompanying the complainant during the time of transaction. From the above document produced it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing service to the complainant.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - S. Padmakshan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Receipt dated 15.03.2012
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Gopakumar. S. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - E – journal entry dated 6.1.2015
Ext.B2 - CD
Ext.B3 series - True copy of the entries in ATM Register (2 pages)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
