DATE OF FILING : 09/05/16

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of December  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO.  116/16

Between

Complainant       :  Jose Varghese,

                                                                            Ambacattu House, 

                                                                            Udumbannoor P.O., 

                                                                            Thodupuzha, 685 595.

And

Opposite Party                                    :  1 . Sri. Francis Sebastian (Branch Manager),

                                                                       State Bank of India,

                                                                       Bypass Road, Kanjiramattom Junction,

                                                                       Thodupuzha

                                                                2 .  Sri. K.V.Kurian (Branch Manager),

                                                                      State Bank of India,

                                                                      Matha Shopping Arcade,

                                                                      Thodupuzha.

        3 . State Bank of India (SBI),

                                                                     Represented by its Branch Manager,

                                                                     Thodupuzha Branch, Matha Shopping Arcade, 

                                                                     Thodupuzha

                                                (All of them by Adv:Jolly James and Adv:Antony J.Marattil)

                                                               4 . The Manager,

                                                                     State Bank of India, Thodupuzha Branch, 

                                                                     Kanjiramatton Junction, Thodupuzha P.O.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

On 15/07/14 complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.30,000/- from SBI, ATM counter, in Thodupuzha, in three attempts of Rs.10,000/- each.  The ATM machines dispensed Rs.10,000/- each in first two attempts and when he attempted third time for withdrawing another Rs.10,000/- instead of dispensing  the  amount  he  got  receipt  from  the  machine  stating  that  cash

                                                                                                                           (Cont....2)

-2-

dispensed, instead of dispensing the amount.  When the complainant tried again for withdrawing the amount, he got a slip from the ATM machine stating that 'contact Branch Manager'.  At the same time he realized that, as per the receipt from the ATM,  Rs.30,000/- was debited from his bank account.  Immediately he contacted the branch manager, of the next room of ATM counter and informed the matter.  At that time the branch manager replied that, the amount will be re-credited in his account within 2 days. The complainant waited for 2 days, for getting back the amount, when it was not credited in his account, he again approached the opposite parties again.  At that time the first opposite party directed him to contact the manager of SBI, Head Office, Thodupuzha.  As per the direction of the first opposite party, the complainant contacted the second opposite party and the second opposite party informed that the amount which the complainant was lost, will be credited  in his account within 10 days.  Again the complainant approached the second opposite party, after waiting 10 days, and at that time the second opposite party told him that since the account was not credited in your account,  you file a petition before the local sub inspector of police.  As per his direction complainant filed a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha.  But since more than 21 months has elapsed the bank authorities has not taken any steps to recover the amount to the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank authorities complainant approached this Forum seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to take immediate action to re-credit the lost amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant's account.  

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version opposite parties admitted that the petitioner withdrawn Rs.30,000/- from ATM situated at the PB Branch of SBI, Kanjiramattom.  On verification it is revealed that the transaction was successfully completed and the machine dispensed the cash there from.  Accordingly the opposite parties advised the complainant to file a complaint before the police.  As  per the request of the police, the second opposite party hand over the CCTV footings and snaps to them.  The opposite parties has not aware the further investigation made by the police in the said matter.  Hence the complainant is frivolous and hence the complainant be order to pay compensatory cost to the opposite party.

 

                                                                                                                           (Cont....3)

-3-

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 is the ATM transaction detail, Ext.P2 is the bank account statement, Ext.P3 is the copy of news paper, Ext.P4 is the copy of receipt issued by the local police, Ext.P5 is the another news paper cutting and Ext.P6 is the copy of petition filed before the local police produced and marked.

 

From the defence side Kavitha V., SBI, Chief Manager examined as DW1.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?   

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsels for both the parties and had gone through  the  exhibits. It is an admitted fact, that the complainant attempted to withdraw cash from the ATM counter of the SBI, Thodupuzha, three times on 15/07/14.  First two attempt were in success and the machine dispensed Rs.10,000/- each.  But when the complainant attempted third time for withdrawing Rs.10,000/- instead of dispensing the amount he got only the receipt showing that the cash withdrawn.  Later he noticed that Rs.30,000/- was debited from his account.  As per the version and deposition of the complainant  he waited there  and attempted once again.  At that time he got a slip stating that 'contact the branch manager'.  Immediately he contacted the Branch Manager, in the  attached room of the ATM and informed the matter and he proceeded further as per the direction of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

 

The complaint was opposed by the opposite parties on the ground that, since the matter is pending before the police authorities, it is not maintainable herein.  Further they contented that the ATM machine dispensed the amount, but the complainant failed to take it in time and as per the records there was no excess cash in the machine on that day.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties  further argued that, some other person who followed by the complainant for withdrawing the amount may took that amount which was already dispensed by the ATM machine and the complainant failed to took it in

                                                                                                                           (Cont....4)

-4-

 

time.  More over the opposite parties handed over the CCTV footing to the concerned police authorities as they demanded.

 

Here, the version of the opposite parties is that the ATM  dispensed the amount as commanded by the complainant in the third time and as per the print out of the ATM transaction “cash not taken”.  Cash dispenser- Time out – CDU DEVICE INFO (CASH NOT TAKEN).  

 

To counter the contention of the opposite parties complainant specifically stated that he waited the counter till the next person operates and noted that another person withdrawn an amount of Rs.1500/- immediately after the complainant.  To find out a solution of this contention, it is very necessary to go through the CCTV footing of the ATM counter.  As per the version of the opposite party, the CCTV footing of the ATM counter on the alleged transaction was handed over to the police authorities.  At this juncture a very pertinent question arises  that whether the bank authorities verified the CCTV footings or whether they kept a copy of CCTV footings in their file.  In this case we are in agreement with the pleadings of the complainant that, the complainant acted as per the direction of the opposite parties.  He submitted petition before the opposite parties 1 and 2 and at last to the police authorities.  He waited 21 months and at last he approached this Forum as a last resort. On going through the evidence on record we convinced that the averments of the complainant is believable.  The complainant approached all these authorities so many times for redress his grievances.  But unfortunately the opposite parties has not took any effort to consider the petition of the  complainant.  Opposite parties miserably failed to verify the CCTV footings or at least to take necessary steps to inspect the alleged ATM machine with the help of their  technician.  Also opposite parties failed to handed over a copy of the CCTV footings to the complainant, to convince him what is actually happened on that transaction.  In our opinion, the bank failed to extent necessary service to the complainant, at least to consider the requests of the complainant and this attitude of the bank is a clear deficiency in their service , and the opposite party's bank handled this matter very carelessly and deficient in rendering their service to the customer, by not considering the petition of the complainant, positively.

 

                                                                                                                           (Cont....5)

-5-

 

Hence on the basis of the above discussion, the Forum found that the version of the complainant is legally entertainable and the complaint is allowed.  The third opposite party bank is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this  order, failing which this amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default  till the realization. 

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of December, 2018.

 

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                      SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                           Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

             SMT.ASAMOL P.  (MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               - Jose Varghese

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              - Kavitha V.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  The ATM transaction detail

Ext.P2            -  The bank account statement

Ext.P3          -  The copy of news paper

Ext.P4          -  The copy of receipt issued by the local police

Ext.P5          -  The another news paper cutting 

Ext.P6          - The copy of petition filed before the local police 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

               Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT