State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.The State Bank Of India, vs Sri. Mohammad Hameed Ahmed on 21 November, 2022
CONSUMER DISPUTEs
TELANGANA STATE
BEFORE THE
HYDERABAD.
COMMISSION :
REDRESSAL
FA.NO.402 OF 2019
OF 2011, DISTRICT
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.221
CONSUMER COMMISSION, KARIMNAGAR
Between:
1. State Bank of India (SBH)
Peddapally, Karimnagar District,
Rep. by its Manager.
2. State Bank of India (SBH),
Jendah Road Branch,
Peddapally, Karimnagar District,
Rep. by its Manager. Appellants/Opposite Parties
And
Sri Mohammad Hameed Ahmed
S/o.Mohammad Abbas, Age: 45 yrs,
Occ: DTE, CRPF at New Delhi,
R/o.H.No.3-1-315, Aman Nagar Street,
Near Old Sub Court,
Opp. Gayathri Degree College,
Peddapally, Karimnagar,
Karimnagar District.
Respondent/Complainant
M/s.Hari Prasad Podila
Counsel for the Appellants/Opp.Parties Mr.A.Vijay Kumar
Associates
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: M/s.KRR
K.Rajeshwar Rao
HON'BLE PRESIDENT
QUORAM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL,
MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...LADY OF NOVEMBER MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWOo ***** Order (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon'ble Lady Member)
1. This is the appeal filed U/s. 15 of Consumer Protection order dated 03.04.2019 of the District Act,1986 against the Consumer Commission, Karimnagar, made in Cc.No.221/2011. The Appellants are the Opposite Parties and the Respondent is the Complainant in CC.No.221/2011.
22. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Complainant is working as DTE of CRPF @ New Delhi and is an account holder of the Opposite Party Bank vide A/c.No.30324741370 having ATM facility. The present complaint, is filed with regard to an ATM withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- on 21.08.2011 at about 11:15 A.M. For this transaction, the Complainant received an ATM slip showing that the "Machine" did not process the amount.
4. On the same day he could withdraw a of Rs.10,000/ sum three times i.e., Rs.30,000/- and the same was updated in his passbook. It is his case that on 03.09.2011, the Opposite Party debited his account with Rs.50,000/- which included the disputed transaction of Rs.20,000/-. He approached the Opposite Party several times to correct the issue and travelled from Delhi by applying leave. For this negligence and deficiency in service, the present complaint is filed seeking necessary reliefs and compensation.
5. The Opposite Party No.1 filed their written version with the following submissions:
It is admitted that the Complainant conducted transaction bearing Nos.661, 7416, 7417, 7420 through ATM of SBH, Peddapally Branch on 21.08.2011. Transaction No.661 for Rs.10,000/- was referred as unsuccessful and the amount was refunded to the customer on 14.09.2011.
6. With regard to the transaction No.7417 for Rs.20,000/-, the amount was received by him but due to a technical error instead of debiting the customer's account, it was debited in their branch suspense account. In the instant case, the transaction failed but the account was debited and the amount was refunded. Similarly, they have had to recover dues from the customer/Complainant to the Bank when he was paid the cash but his account was not 3 debited. In view of the evidence furnished, they seek the of the al present complaint.
7. The Opposite Party No.2 filed their written version with the following submissions:
The Complainant used the ATM of Opposite Party No.2 at Peddapaly on 21.08.2011 on four occasions and as per the records, the transaction No.661 at 11:12 A.M. failed. He therefore, used the other ATM Machine of Opposite Party No.2 and all the three transactions were sucessful. The Complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 21.08.2011. Since the first transaction No.661 had failed, the amount was re-credited to his account on 14.09.2011 as is evident from the records submitted. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the present complaint and there are no merits in the complaint and hence, they seek dismissal of the case.
8. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A7 are marked on his behalf. On behalf of Opposite Parties, evidence affidavit filed. Ex.B1 to B8 are marked on their behalf.
9. The District Commission after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, allowed the complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the difference amount in wrong debiting and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and damages and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
10. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the Appellants/Opposite Parties filed the appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:
.The Forum below failed to consider and appreciate that the transaction No.661 dated 21.08.2011 for Rs.10,000/- was at 11:12 A.M. in the first ATM Machine but not the alleged transaction of Rs.20,000/-
The first transaction which failed was done on the ATM with ID.No.S10A200138001 but the other transactions subsequent were done in another ATM Machine with ID.No.S10OF200138002. Both the machines are situated within the same premises.
.The Forum failed to consider that due to a technical lapse the second transaction-a withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- which took place in the second ATM Machine was not reflected in the account of the Complainant but was debited in the suspense account of the Bank.
11. The point that arises for consideration is 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? To what relief?
12. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.
13. A careful perusal of the records and material submitted reveals the following:
The Respondent/Complainant has admittedly done the transactions on 21.08.2011. The first transaction failed/could not be processed and the other three are successful. A careful study of Ex.B1 to B3 reveal the following:
Date Time ID.No. TXN Amount Remarks | 21.08.2011 11:12 S10A200138001 661 Rs.10,000/-| unable to process He has now shifted to the second ATM Machine.
Date Time ID.No. TXN Amount Remarks 21.08.2011| 11:14 |S10F200138002 | 7416 | Rs.10,000/-| Successful | 21.08.2011 11:15 S10F200138002| 7417 Rs.10,000/-| Successful 21.08.2011 | 11:19 |S10F200138002 7420 Rs.20,000/-| Successful
14. This transaction for Rs.20,000/- was not reflected in i Bank Statement-Ex.A2. The Appellant/Opposite Party has also admitted that there was a technical error and the he Respondent/Complainant's account was not debited and U Suspense account was debited for this lapse.
15. Basically the Respondent/Complainant attempted to to withdraw Rs.50,000/- vide the four transactions but could only Successfully withdraw Rs.40,000/- vide three transactions. The transaction which failed in the first ATM Machine for Rs.10,000/- was wrongly debited to his account the next day as per the Bank Statement-Ex.B5 on 22.08.2011. To rectify this error the Bank has only reversed the same on 14.09.2011. The delay in reversing a Wrong debit entry for a failed transaction and charging the Respondent/Complainant's account the following day-almost 24 hours later-amounts to gross inefficiency and negligence of the banking system.
16. Insofar as the disputed transaction of Rs.20,000/- is concerned, the Respondent/Complainant certainly received the amount but the technical error in the banking system did not debit his account instantly. This has gone to the Bank's suspense account as per their version. What we notice is that the Respondent/Complainant received the amount but he was debited only on 14.09.2011 i.e., almost 25 days later. This must have caused much confusion to the Respondent/Complainant as per his statement of accounts and passbook entries.
17. For money withdrawn on 21.08.2011, the Appellant/Opposite Party/Bank has only debited the Respondent/Complainant on 14.09.2011 which does not speak very highly of their system or service to the customer. The impugned order did not properly appreciate the evidence placed by the Appellants/0pposite Parties and wrongly concluded that the Respondent/Complainant was entitled to the difference in amount for Rs.10,000/-.
18. In view of our discussions, we conclude that the delay on the part of the Appellants/Opposite Parties in reversing thcse entries has been abnormal and caused much to the agony Respondent/Complainant and he needs to be compensated for this deficiency and negligence.
19. In the result, having considered the grounds urged, the impugned order is modified and the following direction is passed in its place:
The Appellants/Opposite Parties are directed to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the Respondent/Complainant. Time for compliance is six weeks, failing which the amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. thereon till realization. The Respondent/Complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs.5,000/-.
The Appellants/Opposite Parties are permitted to withdraw the statutory deposit, if any, made to the credit of this appeal, together with accrued interest, if any.