State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Andhra Bank, vs 1. Smtl. Korlepara Surya Kumari on 22 September, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/210/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 17/04/2017 in Case No. CC/274/2016 of District Hyderabad-III) 1. Andhra Bank, Somajiguda Branch, H.No 6-3-352/3, Astral Heights, NR Punjagutta Cross Road, banjarahills, Hyderabad 500082, Rep by its Chief Manager ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. Smtl. Korlepara Surya Kumari W/o K. Ramalingeshwara Rao, aged about 70 years, Occ. House Hold, R/o H.No 6-4-454, New Bholakpur, Haryana Steel Centre Building 202, Secunderabad 500080 2. 2.Mr. K. Ramalingeshwara Rao S/o Late K. Koteswarudu, aged about 74 years, Occ. Tretd Senior Citizen, R/o H.No 6-4-454, New Bholakpur, Haryana Steel Centre Building 202, Secunderabad 500080 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 22 Sep 2017 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : At HYDERABAD FA No. 210 of 2017 AGAINST CC NO.274 of 2016, DISTRICT FORUM III, HYDERABAD Between : Andhra Bank, Somajiguda branch, H.No.6-3-352/3, Astral Hights NR Punjagutta Cross Road Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 082 Represented by his Chief Manager .. Appellant/opposite party And Smt. Korlepara Surya Kumari, W/o K. Ramalingeshwara rao Aged about 70 years, occ : Household R/o H.No. 6-4-454, New Bholakpur, Haryana steel Centre Building 202, Secunderabad - 500 080, Telangana. Mr. K. Ramalingeshwara Rao, S/o Late K. Koteswarudu, Aged about 74 years, Occ : Retired Senior Citizen, R/o H.No.6-4-454, New Bholakpur, Haryana Steel Centre Building 202, Secunderabad - 500 080, Telangana.... Respondents/complainants Counsel for the Appellant/opposite party : M/s. V. Sethu Madhava Rao Counsel for the Respondent/complainant : Sri Arcot Narayan Rao Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Friday, the Twenty Second Day of September Two Thousand Seventeen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant to set aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2017 made in CC No 274 of 2016 on the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad and allow the appeal.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainants are the Savings Bank Joint Account holders of appellant/opposite party Bank, under Arogya Dhan Scheme and that they were given an ATM Card bearing No. 053410025071911. The second complainant has been using the ATM card for the purpose of withdrawing cash from ATM Kiosk, situated at Sri Ganasaraswathi Temple Premises, opposite to Gandhi Hospital, Musheerabad. On 23.12.2015 at about 6.27 PM, the second complainant wished to withdraw cash from the ATM and inserted the card into the ATM. Since the ATM did not accept the card, second complainant cancelled the transaction without drawing any cash and again about 6.30 PM they attempted to draw cash one more time and again inserted the card, since the machine did not identify his card, they cancelled the transaction without withdrawing any cash. The second complainant tried third time at 6.31 P.M. and this time the transaction was successful and he withdrew a sum of Rs.2,000/- . However, the statement that was obtained from the machine showed that a sum of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,000/- were withdrawn in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd transactions. The second complainant rushed to the Andhra Bank, Kavadiguda Branch, got pass book updated and found that a sum of Rs.19,000/- was debited from the Account and on the advice of the officials, they made two complaints on 24.12.2015 and representation on 21.01.2016 at the Head office of Andhra Bank for wrong debit entries of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.4,000/-. The complainants also filed a complaint dated 29.01.2016 before the Banking Ombudsman, who, without serving notice on them, conducted a hearing on 28.02.2016 in the absence of the complainant and closed the complaint under clause 13 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 on the grounds that it involves elaborate evidence which is beyond the scope of the Scheme. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party, the complainant served a legal notice dated 03.08.2016 for reversing the debit entries of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.4,000/- or to refund a sum of Rs.19,000/- , Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony , to pay interest at 23% pa on Rs.19,000/- from 23.12.2015, i.e. failed transaction till the date of realization and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
4). The opposite party opposed the above complaint contending that the complainants have suppressed the facts and have filed the complaint with malafide intention. Further, as to why the complainants had been inserting the card for varying amounts beginning with Rs.15,000/- for the first time, Rs.4,000/- for the second time and Rs.2,000/- for the third time. It is denied that the second complainant did not receive cash in the first two attempts. It is contended that if the machine would not function at its whims and fancies and if the ATM was faulty, it would not have given cash even at the 3rd attempt which was made within few minutes of the first two attempts. There has been no complaint by any other party that the ATM machine was not working properly on that day. It is further argued that the PIN number and details are known to the complainants only and therefore there is no scope for any fraudulent transaction. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the complainants filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A- 11 and the opposite party filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B 1 to B6. Both sides have filed their respective written arguments. Heard the counsel on both side.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.19,000/- along with interest @ 9% pa from 23.12.2015 till the date of realization, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/- within 30 days.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8) Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof, along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the respondents/complainants are the Joint Savings Bank Account holders of appellant/opposite party Bank, under Arogya Dhan Scheme and that they were given an ATM Card bearing No. 053410025071911. There is also no dispute that the respondents/complainants are using the ATM card for the purpose of withdrawing cash from ATM Kiosk, situated at Sri Ganasaraswathi Temple Premises, opposite to Gandhi Hospital, Musheerabad.
11) The contention of the respondents/complainants is that on 23.12.2015, when the second respondent/complainant tried to withdraw the amount at 6.27 pm and 6.30 PM, no successful transactions were made from the ATM and in the third attempt he got Rs.2,000/-, but, the Statement of Accounts shows that an amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.4,000/- were debited from their Account for his first attempt and second attempt respectively. On the other hand, the appellant/ opposite party argued that without disclosing the PIN to third party, there is no scope for any fraudulent transaction and hence it is to be inferred that the complainants have withdrawn the amount. Further, the appellant/opposite party contended that there is no foul play or dysfunctional ATM machine since there were successful transactions before and after the complainant's transactions. The appellant/opposite party did not file CC TV footage to establish that the respondents/complainants have withdrawn the cash. There is no evidence on record to show the statement of account with regard to cash deposited into the ATM, the amount withdrawn and balance left at the end of the day in the ATM except stating that no excess cash found and cash was tallied after the disputed transactions. The appellant/opposite party bank failed to produce E.G. Log, Switch report, cash tally report before this Commission. There may be many technical reasons due to failure in withdrawing the amount for the first two attempts. There is no word from the appellant/opposite party that they have installed the CCTV in the ATM room. In every case, the only argument for the Banks is that without ATM card and knowledge of the PIN it is not possible to withdraw the amount from the ATM. It is true in some cases only. No doubt, there have been some cases of fraudulent withdrawals occurred either because the ATM Card or the PIN fell in wrong hands. But, the Bank authorities are not thinking in other angles. We have been observing, in some cases, though the ATM Card in the custody of the card holder and without disclosing the PIN number, fraudulent transactions had taken place. However, so many such types of transactions are coming to our notice, though, no successful transactions were made, the amounts from the accounts of the customers were debiting. We have been observing the Bank authorities relying on only rules and regulations and the possession of debit card and maintenance of secrecy of PIN etc. But they are not relying on internal technical aspects of the machine. In fact, they are not placing before us the details of the amount kept at the beginning of the day , withdrawn amount and balance amount in the ATM at the end of the day. They are not disclosing whether they are checked the ATMs by experts with regard to the functioning of the ATMs. It is also not known whether the amounts were checking at the instance of any highest responsible officer and whether they are maintaining any Register with regard to deposit, withdrawn and balance amount in each ATM at the end of the day. It is to be observed by the highest authorities whether the ATMs were deducting the amounts fraudulently when unsuccessful transactions were made. After perusing so many instances, it is our opinion, that there may be some fraud in the ATMs showing to debit the amounts from the account holders when unsuccessful attempts were made with the connivance of some of the staff members. The highest authority of the Banks should probe into the matters involved in such type of instances thoroughly and take necessary steps to prevent them in future . The respondents/complainants, who, are the senior most citizens need not come to the Court without any grievance. There is some fraud and the bank has to probe it and find out the truth to prevent them in future. The Bank Authorities should made demonstrations from time to time with regard to the functioning of the ATMs to do justice to the customers. The Bank authorities should see that the transactions of the officials in the ATM room be under the scanner of CCTVs. Of late, most of the people now depending upon ATMs to draw and deposit the amounts. By installing and keeping CCTVs in good working condition in ATM centres, many problems with regard to bank transactions would be solved. NON-installation of CCTVS and Poor-maintenance of CCTVS in ATM Centers by the Banks also amounts to deficiency in service since their purchase and maintenance are incurring from public fund. In the absence of the above required information, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the respondents/complainants have withdrawn the said amounts.
12) The Bank authorities should examine the ATMs by experts whether they are suffering from Virus and on that basis they are showing wrong entries.
13) The Bank authorities should consider whether it is possible to mention the sum of amount deposited in the ATM at the beginning of the day, sum of the amount withdrawn by the customer and the balance amount in the ATM, after withdrawing the amount by the customer, in every customer transaction, on everyday, in every ATM Bank. Though, there are some problems to maintain the above condition practically, but, many problems would be solved in future. The bank authorities should also have an eagle eye on the Bank officials who are maintaining the ATMs, enquire into the matters when such instances occurred thoroughly and take preventive steps in future.
14). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/opposite party and the respondents/complainants, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party bank in installing and maintaining the CCTVs and also in supplying required information and taking necessary steps for recovery of the amount and there are no merits in the appeal and consequently the impugned order is confirmed. This Commission answered Point No. 1, accordingly.
15). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order. There shall be no order to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 22.09.2017. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER