State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. K. Sambasiva Rao, Son Of Sanjeeva ... vs 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank Of ... on 24 January, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/668/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/09/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/33/2014 of District Rangareddi) 1. Dr. K. Sambasiva Rao, Son of Sanjeeva Rao, Aged 58 Years, Occ Librarian R.o. Flat No.401, Susilpa Hills, Opp Kushaiguda Bus Depot, S.P. Nagar, Moula Ali Hyderabad 500 040 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Kushaiguda Branch, ECIL Cross Roads, Hyderabad 500 062 2. 2. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, ECIL Premises Branch Code 2714, ECIL Post, Hyderabad 500 062 ...........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 : 24 Jan 2017 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FA NO.668 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.33 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, RANGAREDDY Between: Dr.K.Sambasiva Rao S/o Sanjeeva Rao, aged 58 years, Occ: Librarian, R/o Flat No.401, Susilpa Hills, Opp: Kushaiguda Bus Depot, S.P. Nagar, Moula-Ali, Hyderabad-500 040. ...Appellant/Complainant And 1) The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Kushaiguda branch, ECIL Cross-roads, Hyderabad - 500 062. 2) The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ECIL Premises, Branch Code: 2714, ECIL Post, Hyderabad - 500 062. ...Respondents/Opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant : Party-in-person Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A.V.S.Ramakrishna-R1 Sri G.Prabhakar Sarma-R2 Coram : Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla ... President and Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of January Two thousand Seventeen Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) *** This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful Complainant aggrieved by the orders of District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy dated 12.09.2014 made in CC No.33/2014 in dismissing the complaint.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 26.05.2013 at around 11.50 a.m. complainant entered SBH ATM to enquire balance in the account, by which time, there is break down. Thereafter, he got SMS (short message service) to the effect that the SBH ATM opposite to Kapra Municipality office which is controlled by SBH at ECIL cross-roads had dispensed Rs.20,000/- on 26.05.2013 noon. By bringing the same to the notice of Ops on 27.05.2013 requested to furnish the cctv camera footage/recording at the time of dispensing money, which they failed to. In fact, every ATM has to maintain CC camera footage recordings atleast for three months.
4) That, when the matter was complained to the Banking Ombudsman, the photocopies of cctv footage at 11.54 a.m. and 11.55 a.m. on 26.05.2013 were furnished but not at 12.04 (noon) when the ATM dispensed Rs.20,000/- and thereby misguided, however, the complainant was not allowed to witness the same. There was no security guard, old ATM machine does not have camera and there is frequent break-downs while new ATM machine is having high resolution camera, the cctv is not of proper quality, no bifurcation from one ATM to another in the small chamber, ATM dispenses maximum 40 currency notes at a time. They never kept 1000 denomination notes but kept only 500 and 100 denominations. Then, how could it dispense 20000 rupees at a time, which is nothing but faulty machine. The Ops failed to furnish any evidence. Balance enquiry was made in between 11.54 a.m. & 11.55 a.m. whereas the money was dispensed at 12.04 p.m. with a difference of 9 minutes. Hence the complaint to direct the Ops to make-up their mistake and refund the proceeds; to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony; to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards costs of the petition.
5) Opposite party No.1 filed its written version contending that complaint is not maintainable against it as the complainant is not its account holder, as such, he is not a consumer. It denied about frequent break-down of the ATM machine, so much so around 11.50 a.m. on 26.05.2013 and further denied to have dispensed the amount of Rs.20,000/- without the knowledge of complainant. In fact, without password, the amount cannot be withdrawn from the ATM. CCTV camera will not record or show the dispensing of money from ATM but will show only the entering of persons into the ATM room and operation of the ATM. It admitted that the CCTV footage will be maintained for a period of 3 months. As per rules, the complaint shall be lodged with the bank where the party is maintaining account and not with the bank where ATM is located and further the ATM must be operated by account holder only and not by any third party.
6) The complainant lodged complaint with them on 27.05.2013, upon which, they advised to lodge complaint with his banker and assured to verify the records at their end. The person operating ATM will get transaction slip containing transaction code, ATM ID, transaction number, amount disbursed and if there are 0000, it means the transaction was successful. The slip will be in possession of complainant which he withheld to produce with ulterior motive. There is no mandatory provision to have security gard at the ATM centre as the same is insured by the Bank. It is incorrect that there is break-down of the ATM machine. It denied about improper camera in the ATM room, likewise, no bifurcation in the room.
7) There were only 500 and 100 denomination notes in the ATM. On any day, only maximum of Rs.40,000/- can be withdrawn and every day only three transactions can be done. Even if 40 currency notes of 500 denomination are dispensed, it would come to Rs.40,000/- and the difference of time of 9 minutes may be due to difference of time in his watch. The bank officials will not be present at ATM, hence, producing witness does not arise. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs. As per terms and conditions of ATM, the bank bears no liability for the unauthorized use of the card. The responsibility fully lies with card holder. The cc footage clearly shows that complainant was present in ATM room and operated the ATM which also shows that he had allowed two other persons in operating the ATM and with whose negligence the incident occurred. Apart from it, the opening and closing balance of ATM does not show the excess cash on 27.05.2013. The complainant failed to produce the transaction slip, as such, adverse inference is to be drawn. There are no merits in the complaint and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
8) Opposite party No.2 filed its written version in similar lines reiterating the pleas taken by Opposite party No.1. Complainant had unnecessarily added it as party to the complaint, hence, liable to be dismissed as misjoinder. There arose no cause of action against it. It admitted of complainant having account with their bank branch. On 26.05.2013 at about 12.04 (noon) a sum of Rs.20,000/- was dispensed without the knowledge of complainant, it contends that without swiping the card and entering valid pin number, the amount cannot be dispensed with. The complaint is devoid of any merits and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A5 and on behalf of the Opposite parties, got filed the evidence affidavit of one M.Satyanarayana Reddy, Branch Manager of OP No.1 and the affidavit of one K.M.Sunitha, Chief Manager of OP No.2 bank and the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5.
10) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint bearing CC No.33/2014 by orders dated 12.09.2014, as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.
11) Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellant/Complainant preferred the present appeal contending that the very similar pleas raised before the forum below and further contended that instead of producing the cctv footage for the period 12.04 (noon) on 26.05.2013, the Respondents produced the footage of 11.54 a.m. and 11.55 a.m. which the Banking Ombudsman also failed to consider and passed unilateral and one-sided order. It is further contended that in case of defunct of the ATM, the bank is only responsible and no other. The forum below failed to appreciate that though the Appellant was present in the room, he had not withdrawn the money though his account is debited with Rs.20,000/-. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders of forum below and consequently allow the complaint as prayed for.
12) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
13) It is not in dispute that the Appellant is holding bank account with the OP No.2 bank as also the facility of debit card. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant operated the ATM machine located at opposite Kapra Municipality maintained and controlled by the OP No.1. The only dispute is that though the Appellant had not withdrawn such amount on 26.05.2013, he received a message to that effect. On the request of the Appellant to produce the CCTV footage records on the particular day, at the first instance, the Respondents denied but however, produced the same before the Banking Ombudsman.
14) A keen perusal of the documents exhibited by both sides would clearly show that the Appellant did transaction at the ATM centre of OP No.1 on 26.05.2013 at about 11.54 a.m. whereas the disputed amount appears to have been dispensed at 12.04 p.m. Admittedly, the CCTV footage pertain to this particular date is marked as Ex.B5 and the series of events from 11.53.44 hours to 12.00.39 hours on 26.05.2013 have been viewed and discussed by the forum below which clinches the issue that the Appellant knowingly allowed a third person to have access to his card. Admittedly, the appellant is aged 58 years and may be for this reason, he might have allowed the third persons to operate with his card, which paved the way for withdrawal of the amount. The appellant himself is responsible for his own acts and misdeeds and cannot throw the burden on the Respondents and claim the credit of proceeds.
15) From the perusal of the copy of 4107 EJLOG marked as Ex.B5, it is clear that the balance enquiry made by the Appellant was also successful and also the withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- on the disputed date and time. Since the appellant himself violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B1, he cannot fasten the liability on the respondents banks.
16) For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any deficiency in service much less negligence on the part of the Respondents. Accordingly, we answer the point framed for consideration at paragraph No.12, supra, against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondents.
19) In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but no costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated 24.01.2017 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER