By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1.Complaint in short is as follows: -
The complainant approached ATM Cum CDM counter of the opposite party on 28/01/2022 at about 11 am with the ATM card of grandfather to withdraw money from ATM for the treatment purpose of grandfather. At that time there was one person who was trying to deposit the money through CDM for more than once and he made inconvenience to the complainant and other customers. The complainant requested him to give opportunity for the complainant, but he threatened the complainant. The complainant recorded the heated exchange in his mobile phone and shown to the Bank Manager, but the manager ignored the same. Meanwhile the particular person came to the bank counter and threatened the complainant and said that he will finish him on coming out of the bank. Thereafter there was hot exchange between the complainant and that person and the complainant requested the Bank Manager to inform the police but the Manager did not heed to his request. Meanwhile that particular person called his friends and tried to settle the issue and also requested to delete the video from the mobile phone. The complainant was not ready to remove the video and then he was threatened and told that he cannot go out of the bank counter without deleting the video recorded. Thereafter again complainant approached the Manager, but the Manager simply ignored the complainant and the complainant after deleting the video left the bank.
2. The complainant alleges there is deficiency in service on the part of the Bank Manager and if he had interfered promptly the situation could have been avoided. Due to the act of the opposite party complainant caused mental agony, as well as time loss. The complainant approached the customer cell of the opposite party and registered a complaint also. But thereafter no action was taken by the opposite party. Thereafter complainant approached the Thirurangadi Police and a complaint was lodged therein. The bank had handed over CCTV of the relevant time. The prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite party to pay sufficient amount as compensation for mental agony and loss of time.
3. Immediately on admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed application to consider the maintainability as IA 406/22. The contention in the application is that the dispute is between two customers and that one of the customers was remitting the amount in bulk has not paved the way for the complainant and had getting the clipping of the same in his phone. The grievance of the complainant is that, there was quarrel between the parties and the Manager has not interfered with. So, the submission of the opposite party is that complaint is not comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the petition is not maintainable before this Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The opposite party contented that, if the complainant had any grievance against the other customer, he has to make a complaint to the police and the police can interfered with the same.
4. The matter was posted for settlement to 11/08/2022 and on that day complainant was absent and the opposite party raised the issue of maintainability again. The opposite party filed version on 07/07/2022 seriously opposing the allegations and averments in the complaint. The contention in the version is that the complaint is pertaining to a dispute with regard to the act of another person who was using the CDM for depositing cash continuously and who has not paved the way to the complainant to use the ATM. Even though the complainant demanded to pave the way for others to use the ATM the person who was continuously using the CDM to deposit the cash threatened the complainant. The complainant recorded the video of the same and when he showed to the opposite party by going inside the bank, the opposite party had not taken care of him. The opposite party denied the said averments in the complaint and submitted that the CDM has been introduced by the bank for making cash deposited without visiting the branch and this particular ATM /CDM is established outside of the branch premises.
5. The opposite party submitted that they cannot put any restriction on customers making more than one deposit. The bank cannot interfere if there is any quarrel between the person using the CDM/ ATM and so the opposite party cannot be made any way liable for any deficiency in service. In this complaint when the complainant came to the Manager of the bank the other party about whom the complainant was having grievances also came inside the bank and both of the started to quarrel with each other by raising voice inside the bank and the same disrupted the function of the branch and then the opposite party informed the complainant and other person not to continue the quarrel inside the bank and if they are continuing , the opposite party will be compelled to inform the police about the same. Meanwhile some other customers also intervened and disbursed by themselves. The submission of the opposite party is that the opposite party is having no authority to interfere with in a quarrel between two persons outside the bank premises wherein the ATM of the bank is established/ situated. The opposite party also submitted that if the complainant is having any complaint with regard to the act of any other person in the ATM premises it is up to him to approach the police and file a complaint.
6. The opposite party also denied the allegation that, he has not acted by filing complaint to the police resulted in the incident. The submission of the opposite party is that when both of the parties continued the exchange of words in a heated manner inside the bank this opposite party informed them that if they are continued the quarrel inside the bank this opposite party will be informing the police and hearing the said information and due to the intervention of other customers present in the bank, the parties themselves disbursed and went out of the bank premises. So, the submission of the opposite party is that the allegation of the complaint is not one which is part of any service rendered by the bank to a customer and so there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and so the complaint is filed by complainant without any cause of action. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party.
7. On 20/09/2022 when the complaint was taken for considering maintainability the complainant submitted before the Commission that he is not willing to proceed with the complaint and requested to summon the opposite party to appear in person and apologise or to pay compensation for the days which he spent for appearing before the Commission with the complaint i.e., three days. The complainant submitted a statement to that effect also. But the complainant did not file affidavit or documents to prove his allegation. Hence both parties heard and taken the matter for orders.
8. It appears that the complainant met with a situation where in he approached the ATM counter for collecting cash for the treatment purpose of his grandfather. But at the ATM/CDM counter was engaged with another person and he was continuing transaction leisurely taking his own time without any restriction. Naturally the complainant was being in a hurry mood asked the other person to paved way to the complainant a as well s other customers. But the person who was engaged in CDM deposits responded in a rough manner which resulted much hardship and inconvenience to the complainant. He also caused mental agony due to the response from the Manager of the opposite party Bank. But the contention of the opposite party is that the Manager have no immediate control over the ATM/ CDM counter and so he was not able to interfere with the dispute. The opposite party submitted that they had informed the parties against making quarrel inside the bank and the chance for calling police officials. Upon hearing the words of the opposite party, the complaint and opposite party left the premises of the bank. It can be seen that the complainant admitted that he approached the police and the opposite party had hand over relevant document that is CCTV footage to the police. Now it will be proper to interfere the police officials to redress the grievance if any had caused to the complaint. Since the opposite party is not having direct control over ATM /CDM counter it will not be proper to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant rightly approached the police and they have registered his complaint also. So, it will be proper to be interfered by the police and we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complaint. Even then it will be proper to observe that to have a mechanism to protect interest of honest consumers before the unattended ATM/CDM counters and with the above observation the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 10thday of October , 2022.
MOHANDASANK., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMANC., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
MOHANDASANK., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMANC., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
