State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Managar, The State Bank Of ... vs Sushila Narayan Bantawar on 2 February, 2016
1 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing :02.08.2014
Date of order :02.02.2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. :437 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 323 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
The Branch Manager,
The State Bank Hyderabad,
Branch Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad,
Dist.Nanded. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Sushila Narayan Bantawar,
R/o Samrala, Post Yetala,
Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Branch Dharmabad, Tq.Dharmabad,
Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS.
Date of filing :06.08.2014
Date of order :02.02.2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. :461 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 323 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
State Bank of India,
Dharmabad Branch,
Dist.Nanded,
Through its Branch Manager. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS.
1 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing :02.08.2014
Date of order :02.02.2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. :437 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 323 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
The Branch Manager,
The State Bank Hyderabad,
Branch Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad,
Dist.Nanded. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Sushila Narayan Bantawar,
R/o Samrala, Post Yetala,
Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Branch Dharmabad, Tq.Dharmabad,
Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS.
Date of filing :06.08.2014
Date of order :02.02.2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. :461 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 323 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
State Bank of India,
Dharmabad Branch,
Dist.Nanded,
Through its Branch Manager. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS.
1 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing :02.08.2014
Date of order :02.02.2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. :437 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 323 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
The Branch Manager,
The State Bank Hyderabad,
Branch Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad,
Dist.Nanded. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Sushila Narayan Bantawar,
R/o Samrala, Post Yetala,
Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Branch Dharmabad, Tq.Dharmabad,
Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS.
Date of filing :06.08.2014
Date of order :02.02.2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. :461 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 323 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
State Bank of India,
Dharmabad Branch,
Dist.Nanded,
Through its Branch Manager. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS.
1 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing :02.08.2014
Date of order :02.02.2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. :437 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 323 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
The Branch Manager,
The State Bank Hyderabad,
Branch Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad,
Dist.Nanded. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Sushila Narayan Bantawar,
R/o Samrala, Post Yetala,
Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Branch Dharmabad, Tq.Dharmabad,
Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS.
Date of filing :06.08.2014
Date of order :02.02.2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. :461 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 323 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
State Bank of India,
Dharmabad Branch,
Dist.Nanded,
Through its Branch Manager. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS.
2 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
1. Sushila Narayan Bantawar,
R/o Samrala, Post Yetala,
Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Dharmabad Branch, Tq.Dharmabad,
Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.S.P.Golegaonkar for SBH, Adv.Mr.P.B.Paithankar for SBI, Adv.Mr.Boiwad for complainant.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 2nd February 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. Challenge in both these appeals is the judgment and order dated 6.6.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded partly allowing complainant's claim in C.C.No.223/2011 directing both the appellants bank(opponents bank) to jointly and severally pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 6% and further compensation Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings.
(For the sake of brevity appellants bank are hereinafter referred as opponent SBH & opponent SBI and respondent Smt.Sushila Bantawar as the complainant)
2. Since parties in both these appeals are common and impugned judgment is the same, we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.
2 F.A..No.:437 & 461/20141. Sushila Narayan Bantawar, R/o Samrala, Post Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Dharmabad Branch, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.S.P.Golegaonkar for SBH, Adv.Mr.P.B.Paithankar for SBI, Adv.Mr.Boiwad for complainant.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 2nd February 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. Challenge in both these appeals is the judgment and order dated 6.6.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded partly allowing complainant's claim in C.C.No.223/2011 directing both the appellants bank(opponents bank) to jointly and severally pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 6% and further compensation Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings.
(For the sake of brevity appellants bank are hereinafter referred as opponent SBH & opponent SBI and respondent Smt.Sushila Bantawar as the complainant)
2. Since parties in both these appeals are common and impugned judgment is the same, we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.
2 F.A..No.:437 & 461/20141. Sushila Narayan Bantawar, R/o Samrala, Post Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Dharmabad Branch, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.S.P.Golegaonkar for SBH, Adv.Mr.P.B.Paithankar for SBI, Adv.Mr.Boiwad for complainant.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 2nd February 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. Challenge in both these appeals is the judgment and order dated 6.6.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded partly allowing complainant's claim in C.C.No.223/2011 directing both the appellants bank(opponents bank) to jointly and severally pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 6% and further compensation Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings.
(For the sake of brevity appellants bank are hereinafter referred as opponent SBH & opponent SBI and respondent Smt.Sushila Bantawar as the complainant)
2. Since parties in both these appeals are common and impugned judgment is the same, we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.
2 F.A..No.:437 & 461/20141. Sushila Narayan Bantawar, R/o Samrala, Post Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Dharmabad Branch, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.S.P.Golegaonkar for SBH, Adv.Mr.P.B.Paithankar for SBI, Adv.Mr.Boiwad for complainant.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 2nd February 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. Challenge in both these appeals is the judgment and order dated 6.6.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded partly allowing complainant's claim in C.C.No.223/2011 directing both the appellants bank(opponents bank) to jointly and severally pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 6% and further compensation Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings.
(For the sake of brevity appellants bank are hereinafter referred as opponent SBH & opponent SBI and respondent Smt.Sushila Bantawar as the complainant)
2. Since parties in both these appeals are common and impugned judgment is the same, we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.
3 F.A..No.:437 & 461/20143. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:-
Complainant Sushila is having banking account bearing No.52190229149 with opponent SBH branch at Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. She was also having ATM facility having ATM card No.5044352064600000494.
4. On 26.7.2010 complainant made attempt to withdraw amount of Rs.20,000/- for thrice from ATM machine of SBI Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. However, she could not receive any amount or any slip from ATM machine. Therefore she went to another ATM of SBH Dharmabad and withdrawn amount of Rs.20,000/- twice total Rs.40,000/-. However, amount of Rs.60,000 + 40,000/- came to be debited from her account. When she came to know about such debit entries of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-, on 14.8.2010 she made complaint with opponent SBH Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded and on receipt of her complaint opponent SBH by its letter made enquiry with opponent SBI. It was also informed by opponent SBH to SBI that there were two transactions of ATM made by the complainant and for one transaction amount of Rs.40,000/- came to be debited and another transaction Rs.20,000/- came to be debited. However, under BGL, on 14.8.2010 amount of Rs.20,000/- is credited to the account of complainant. By reply dated 21.5.2011 opponent SBI informed that it has not received excess amount of Rs.40,000/- and no ATM related system suspense entry is pending with it. It is submitted that thereafter complainant under Right to Information Act obtained information from opponent SBH and came to know that opponent SBH received amount of Rs.20,000/- from opponent SBI but Rs.40,000/- are not received. It is submitted that due to incorrect procedure amount of Rs.40,000/- came to be wrongly debited but despite her demand amount of Rs.40,000/- is not received. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent SBH, complainant has filed consumer complaint 3 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:-
Complainant Sushila is having banking account bearing No.52190229149 with opponent SBH branch at Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. She was also having ATM facility having ATM card No.5044352064600000494.
4. On 26.7.2010 complainant made attempt to withdraw amount of Rs.20,000/- for thrice from ATM machine of SBI Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. However, she could not receive any amount or any slip from ATM machine. Therefore she went to another ATM of SBH Dharmabad and withdrawn amount of Rs.20,000/- twice total Rs.40,000/-. However, amount of Rs.60,000 + 40,000/- came to be debited from her account. When she came to know about such debit entries of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-, on 14.8.2010 she made complaint with opponent SBH Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded and on receipt of her complaint opponent SBH by its letter made enquiry with opponent SBI. It was also informed by opponent SBH to SBI that there were two transactions of ATM made by the complainant and for one transaction amount of Rs.40,000/- came to be debited and another transaction Rs.20,000/- came to be debited. However, under BGL, on 14.8.2010 amount of Rs.20,000/- is credited to the account of complainant. By reply dated 21.5.2011 opponent SBI informed that it has not received excess amount of Rs.40,000/- and no ATM related system suspense entry is pending with it. It is submitted that thereafter complainant under Right to Information Act obtained information from opponent SBH and came to know that opponent SBH received amount of Rs.20,000/- from opponent SBI but Rs.40,000/- are not received. It is submitted that due to incorrect procedure amount of Rs.40,000/- came to be wrongly debited but despite her demand amount of Rs.40,000/- is not received. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent SBH, complainant has filed consumer complaint 3 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:-
Complainant Sushila is having banking account bearing No.52190229149 with opponent SBH branch at Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. She was also having ATM facility having ATM card No.5044352064600000494.
4. On 26.7.2010 complainant made attempt to withdraw amount of Rs.20,000/- for thrice from ATM machine of SBI Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. However, she could not receive any amount or any slip from ATM machine. Therefore she went to another ATM of SBH Dharmabad and withdrawn amount of Rs.20,000/- twice total Rs.40,000/-. However, amount of Rs.60,000 + 40,000/- came to be debited from her account. When she came to know about such debit entries of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-, on 14.8.2010 she made complaint with opponent SBH Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded and on receipt of her complaint opponent SBH by its letter made enquiry with opponent SBI. It was also informed by opponent SBH to SBI that there were two transactions of ATM made by the complainant and for one transaction amount of Rs.40,000/- came to be debited and another transaction Rs.20,000/- came to be debited. However, under BGL, on 14.8.2010 amount of Rs.20,000/- is credited to the account of complainant. By reply dated 21.5.2011 opponent SBI informed that it has not received excess amount of Rs.40,000/- and no ATM related system suspense entry is pending with it. It is submitted that thereafter complainant under Right to Information Act obtained information from opponent SBH and came to know that opponent SBH received amount of Rs.20,000/- from opponent SBI but Rs.40,000/- are not received. It is submitted that due to incorrect procedure amount of Rs.40,000/- came to be wrongly debited but despite her demand amount of Rs.40,000/- is not received. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent SBH, complainant has filed consumer complaint 3 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:-
Complainant Sushila is having banking account bearing No.52190229149 with opponent SBH branch at Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. She was also having ATM facility having ATM card No.5044352064600000494.
4. On 26.7.2010 complainant made attempt to withdraw amount of Rs.20,000/- for thrice from ATM machine of SBI Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded. However, she could not receive any amount or any slip from ATM machine. Therefore she went to another ATM of SBH Dharmabad and withdrawn amount of Rs.20,000/- twice total Rs.40,000/-. However, amount of Rs.60,000 + 40,000/- came to be debited from her account. When she came to know about such debit entries of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-, on 14.8.2010 she made complaint with opponent SBH Yetala, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist.Nanded and on receipt of her complaint opponent SBH by its letter made enquiry with opponent SBI. It was also informed by opponent SBH to SBI that there were two transactions of ATM made by the complainant and for one transaction amount of Rs.40,000/- came to be debited and another transaction Rs.20,000/- came to be debited. However, under BGL, on 14.8.2010 amount of Rs.20,000/- is credited to the account of complainant. By reply dated 21.5.2011 opponent SBI informed that it has not received excess amount of Rs.40,000/- and no ATM related system suspense entry is pending with it. It is submitted that thereafter complainant under Right to Information Act obtained information from opponent SBH and came to know that opponent SBH received amount of Rs.20,000/- from opponent SBI but Rs.40,000/- are not received. It is submitted that due to incorrect procedure amount of Rs.40,000/- came to be wrongly debited but despite her demand amount of Rs.40,000/- is not received. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent SBH, complainant has filed consumer complaint 4 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014 against opponent SBH claiming refund of amount of Rs.40,000/- with 12% interest, compensation Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
5. In response to the complaint notice opponent SBH appeared before the Forum and by application submitted to add opponent SBI in the array of opponents. As per request of opponent SBH, opponent SBI is added as opponent No.2 and in response to the notice opponent SBI appeared and resisted the complaint by its written version contending inter alia that complainant is being not its consumer, complaint against it is not maintainable. It is submitted that as per debit entries complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- through its ATM. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint against it. However, opponent SBH despite giving sufficient opportunity did not file written version.
6. On hearing counsel for complainant and opponent SBI and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that complainant has not received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM of opponent SBI but amount of Rs.40,000/- is wrongly debited from her account and therefore both the opponent banks are jointly and severally liable to pay amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant etc. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
7. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, both the opponent banks came to this Commission by filing separate appeals.
8. We heard learned counsel for both side and perused the written notes of argument submitted by them. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version of opponent SBI, copies of statement of account, extract of ATM entries, copies of letters pertaining to the correspondence between 4 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014 against opponent SBH claiming refund of amount of Rs.40,000/- with 12% interest, compensation Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
5. In response to the complaint notice opponent SBH appeared before the Forum and by application submitted to add opponent SBI in the array of opponents. As per request of opponent SBH, opponent SBI is added as opponent No.2 and in response to the notice opponent SBI appeared and resisted the complaint by its written version contending inter alia that complainant is being not its consumer, complaint against it is not maintainable. It is submitted that as per debit entries complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- through its ATM. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint against it. However, opponent SBH despite giving sufficient opportunity did not file written version.
6. On hearing counsel for complainant and opponent SBI and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that complainant has not received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM of opponent SBI but amount of Rs.40,000/- is wrongly debited from her account and therefore both the opponent banks are jointly and severally liable to pay amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant etc. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
7. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, both the opponent banks came to this Commission by filing separate appeals.
8. We heard learned counsel for both side and perused the written notes of argument submitted by them. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version of opponent SBI, copies of statement of account, extract of ATM entries, copies of letters pertaining to the correspondence between 4 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014 against opponent SBH claiming refund of amount of Rs.40,000/- with 12% interest, compensation Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
5. In response to the complaint notice opponent SBH appeared before the Forum and by application submitted to add opponent SBI in the array of opponents. As per request of opponent SBH, opponent SBI is added as opponent No.2 and in response to the notice opponent SBI appeared and resisted the complaint by its written version contending inter alia that complainant is being not its consumer, complaint against it is not maintainable. It is submitted that as per debit entries complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- through its ATM. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint against it. However, opponent SBH despite giving sufficient opportunity did not file written version.
6. On hearing counsel for complainant and opponent SBI and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that complainant has not received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM of opponent SBI but amount of Rs.40,000/- is wrongly debited from her account and therefore both the opponent banks are jointly and severally liable to pay amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant etc. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
7. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, both the opponent banks came to this Commission by filing separate appeals.
8. We heard learned counsel for both side and perused the written notes of argument submitted by them. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version of opponent SBI, copies of statement of account, extract of ATM entries, copies of letters pertaining to the correspondence between 4 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014 against opponent SBH claiming refund of amount of Rs.40,000/- with 12% interest, compensation Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
5. In response to the complaint notice opponent SBH appeared before the Forum and by application submitted to add opponent SBI in the array of opponents. As per request of opponent SBH, opponent SBI is added as opponent No.2 and in response to the notice opponent SBI appeared and resisted the complaint by its written version contending inter alia that complainant is being not its consumer, complaint against it is not maintainable. It is submitted that as per debit entries complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- through its ATM. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint against it. However, opponent SBH despite giving sufficient opportunity did not file written version.
6. On hearing counsel for complainant and opponent SBI and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that complainant has not received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM of opponent SBI but amount of Rs.40,000/- is wrongly debited from her account and therefore both the opponent banks are jointly and severally liable to pay amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant etc. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
7. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, both the opponent banks came to this Commission by filing separate appeals.
8. We heard learned counsel for both side and perused the written notes of argument submitted by them. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version of opponent SBI, copies of statement of account, extract of ATM entries, copies of letters pertaining to the correspondence between 5 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014 opponent banks interse and also copy of impugned judgment and order.
9. Undisputed facts are that complainant Smt.Sushila is a consumer of opponent SBH having saving account with ATM facility. On 26.7.2010 she made attempt to withdraw the amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI. According to complainant as she could not receive amount from ATM machine of opponent SBI she went to the ATM machine of opponent SBH and withdrawn amount of Rs.40,000/- by two attempts. According to opponent SBI withdrawal of two attempts made by complainant through its ATM machine were successfully and complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/-. It is not disputed that on the same day complainant withdrawn amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of SBH in two attempts. However, on the same day amount of Rs.1,00,000/- came to be debited from account of complainant showing five attempts of Rs.20,000/- each withdrawal through ATM. It is also not disputed that on receipt of complaint from complainant, opponent SBH credited amount of Rs.20,000/- on 14.8.2010 in the account of complainant. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI or not?
10. It is submitted by Mr.Boindwad advocate appearing for the complainant that one cannot withdraw the amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine during the same day. But the opponents have falsely alleged that on 26.7.2010 complainant has received amount of Rs.40,000/- through ATM machine of opponent SBI and thereafter Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBH. It is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for opponent banks that amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- cannot be withdrawn from ATM machine during the same day. However, according to them if ATM transaction made by the complainant from ATM machine of opponent 5 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014 opponent banks interse and also copy of impugned judgment and order.
9. Undisputed facts are that complainant Smt.Sushila is a consumer of opponent SBH having saving account with ATM facility. On 26.7.2010 she made attempt to withdraw the amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI. According to complainant as she could not receive amount from ATM machine of opponent SBI she went to the ATM machine of opponent SBH and withdrawn amount of Rs.40,000/- by two attempts. According to opponent SBI withdrawal of two attempts made by complainant through its ATM machine were successfully and complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/-. It is not disputed that on the same day complainant withdrawn amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of SBH in two attempts. However, on the same day amount of Rs.1,00,000/- came to be debited from account of complainant showing five attempts of Rs.20,000/- each withdrawal through ATM. It is also not disputed that on receipt of complaint from complainant, opponent SBH credited amount of Rs.20,000/- on 14.8.2010 in the account of complainant. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI or not?
10. It is submitted by Mr.Boindwad advocate appearing for the complainant that one cannot withdraw the amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine during the same day. But the opponents have falsely alleged that on 26.7.2010 complainant has received amount of Rs.40,000/- through ATM machine of opponent SBI and thereafter Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBH. It is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for opponent banks that amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- cannot be withdrawn from ATM machine during the same day. However, according to them if ATM transaction made by the complainant from ATM machine of opponent 5 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014 opponent banks interse and also copy of impugned judgment and order.
9. Undisputed facts are that complainant Smt.Sushila is a consumer of opponent SBH having saving account with ATM facility. On 26.7.2010 she made attempt to withdraw the amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI. According to complainant as she could not receive amount from ATM machine of opponent SBI she went to the ATM machine of opponent SBH and withdrawn amount of Rs.40,000/- by two attempts. According to opponent SBI withdrawal of two attempts made by complainant through its ATM machine were successfully and complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/-. It is not disputed that on the same day complainant withdrawn amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of SBH in two attempts. However, on the same day amount of Rs.1,00,000/- came to be debited from account of complainant showing five attempts of Rs.20,000/- each withdrawal through ATM. It is also not disputed that on receipt of complaint from complainant, opponent SBH credited amount of Rs.20,000/- on 14.8.2010 in the account of complainant. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI or not?
10. It is submitted by Mr.Boindwad advocate appearing for the complainant that one cannot withdraw the amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine during the same day. But the opponents have falsely alleged that on 26.7.2010 complainant has received amount of Rs.40,000/- through ATM machine of opponent SBI and thereafter Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBH. It is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for opponent banks that amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- cannot be withdrawn from ATM machine during the same day. However, according to them if ATM transaction made by the complainant from ATM machine of opponent 5 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014 opponent banks interse and also copy of impugned judgment and order.
9. Undisputed facts are that complainant Smt.Sushila is a consumer of opponent SBH having saving account with ATM facility. On 26.7.2010 she made attempt to withdraw the amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI. According to complainant as she could not receive amount from ATM machine of opponent SBI she went to the ATM machine of opponent SBH and withdrawn amount of Rs.40,000/- by two attempts. According to opponent SBI withdrawal of two attempts made by complainant through its ATM machine were successfully and complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/-. It is not disputed that on the same day complainant withdrawn amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of SBH in two attempts. However, on the same day amount of Rs.1,00,000/- came to be debited from account of complainant showing five attempts of Rs.20,000/- each withdrawal through ATM. It is also not disputed that on receipt of complaint from complainant, opponent SBH credited amount of Rs.20,000/- on 14.8.2010 in the account of complainant. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI or not?
10. It is submitted by Mr.Boindwad advocate appearing for the complainant that one cannot withdraw the amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine during the same day. But the opponents have falsely alleged that on 26.7.2010 complainant has received amount of Rs.40,000/- through ATM machine of opponent SBI and thereafter Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBH. It is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for opponent banks that amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- cannot be withdrawn from ATM machine during the same day. However, according to them if ATM transaction made by the complainant from ATM machine of opponent 6 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014 SBI were not successful, the amount would have reverted and reverse entry should have recorded in the account of complainant immediately on the same day or on the following next day. Further it is submitted by Mr.Golegaonkar learned counsel appearing for the opponent No.2 SBH that if complainant would not have received amount from ATM of opponent SBI, excess amount of Rs.40,000/- would have remained in suspense with opponent SBI. But only amount of Rs.20,000/- was remained excess and same amount is credited to the account of complainant immediately after receipt of the complaint from complainant. But we find little force in the submission of Mr.Golegaonkar learned counsel for opponent SBH. Firstly, because if complainant would have received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of SBI, she would not have received amount of Rs.40,000/- more from ATM machine of SBH on the same day. No explanation is given as to why such amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- was allowed to be withdrawn by complainant on the very same day through ATM. On the contrary opponent SBH did not file written version. But from undisputed facts that on the same day i.e. on 26.7.2010 complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBH itself falsify the contention of opponent bank that on the same day complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI.
11. However, Mr.Paithankar learned counsel appearing for the opponent SBI pointing out from extract ATM entries dated 26.7.2010 submitted that attempts made by complainant Sushila to withdraw the amount through ATM of SBI were successful and therefore response code as 000 is recorded. According to him as 3rd attempt of the complainant to withdraw amount of Rs.20,000/- was not successful amount of Rs.20,000/- which was shown under suspense was transferred to the opponent SBH and the same is credited to the account of complainant on 14.8.2010.
6 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014SBI were not successful, the amount would have reverted and reverse entry should have recorded in the account of complainant immediately on the same day or on the following next day. Further it is submitted by Mr.Golegaonkar learned counsel appearing for the opponent No.2 SBH that if complainant would not have received amount from ATM of opponent SBI, excess amount of Rs.40,000/- would have remained in suspense with opponent SBI. But only amount of Rs.20,000/- was remained excess and same amount is credited to the account of complainant immediately after receipt of the complaint from complainant. But we find little force in the submission of Mr.Golegaonkar learned counsel for opponent SBH. Firstly, because if complainant would have received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of SBI, she would not have received amount of Rs.40,000/- more from ATM machine of SBH on the same day. No explanation is given as to why such amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- was allowed to be withdrawn by complainant on the very same day through ATM. On the contrary opponent SBH did not file written version. But from undisputed facts that on the same day i.e. on 26.7.2010 complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBH itself falsify the contention of opponent bank that on the same day complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI.
11. However, Mr.Paithankar learned counsel appearing for the opponent SBI pointing out from extract ATM entries dated 26.7.2010 submitted that attempts made by complainant Sushila to withdraw the amount through ATM of SBI were successful and therefore response code as 000 is recorded. According to him as 3rd attempt of the complainant to withdraw amount of Rs.20,000/- was not successful amount of Rs.20,000/- which was shown under suspense was transferred to the opponent SBH and the same is credited to the account of complainant on 14.8.2010.
6 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014SBI were not successful, the amount would have reverted and reverse entry should have recorded in the account of complainant immediately on the same day or on the following next day. Further it is submitted by Mr.Golegaonkar learned counsel appearing for the opponent No.2 SBH that if complainant would not have received amount from ATM of opponent SBI, excess amount of Rs.40,000/- would have remained in suspense with opponent SBI. But only amount of Rs.20,000/- was remained excess and same amount is credited to the account of complainant immediately after receipt of the complaint from complainant. But we find little force in the submission of Mr.Golegaonkar learned counsel for opponent SBH. Firstly, because if complainant would have received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of SBI, she would not have received amount of Rs.40,000/- more from ATM machine of SBH on the same day. No explanation is given as to why such amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- was allowed to be withdrawn by complainant on the very same day through ATM. On the contrary opponent SBH did not file written version. But from undisputed facts that on the same day i.e. on 26.7.2010 complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBH itself falsify the contention of opponent bank that on the same day complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI.
11. However, Mr.Paithankar learned counsel appearing for the opponent SBI pointing out from extract ATM entries dated 26.7.2010 submitted that attempts made by complainant Sushila to withdraw the amount through ATM of SBI were successful and therefore response code as 000 is recorded. According to him as 3rd attempt of the complainant to withdraw amount of Rs.20,000/- was not successful amount of Rs.20,000/- which was shown under suspense was transferred to the opponent SBH and the same is credited to the account of complainant on 14.8.2010.
6 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014SBI were not successful, the amount would have reverted and reverse entry should have recorded in the account of complainant immediately on the same day or on the following next day. Further it is submitted by Mr.Golegaonkar learned counsel appearing for the opponent No.2 SBH that if complainant would not have received amount from ATM of opponent SBI, excess amount of Rs.40,000/- would have remained in suspense with opponent SBI. But only amount of Rs.20,000/- was remained excess and same amount is credited to the account of complainant immediately after receipt of the complaint from complainant. But we find little force in the submission of Mr.Golegaonkar learned counsel for opponent SBH. Firstly, because if complainant would have received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of SBI, she would not have received amount of Rs.40,000/- more from ATM machine of SBH on the same day. No explanation is given as to why such amount exceeding Rs.40,000/- was allowed to be withdrawn by complainant on the very same day through ATM. On the contrary opponent SBH did not file written version. But from undisputed facts that on the same day i.e. on 26.7.2010 complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBH itself falsify the contention of opponent bank that on the same day complainant received amount of Rs.40,000/- from ATM machine of opponent SBI.
11. However, Mr.Paithankar learned counsel appearing for the opponent SBI pointing out from extract ATM entries dated 26.7.2010 submitted that attempts made by complainant Sushila to withdraw the amount through ATM of SBI were successful and therefore response code as 000 is recorded. According to him as 3rd attempt of the complainant to withdraw amount of Rs.20,000/- was not successful amount of Rs.20,000/- which was shown under suspense was transferred to the opponent SBH and the same is credited to the account of complainant on 14.8.2010.
7 F.A..No.:437 & 461/201412. On perusal of copy of letter dated 21.5.2011 of opponent SBI to opponent SBH we find much force in the submission of Mr.Paithankar advocate appearing for opponent SBI. This letter clearly shows that no excess amount of Rs.40,000/- is received on 26.7.2010 or no ATM related suspense entry is pending with it. But it appears from the undisputed facts that debit entries of Rs.1 lakh are wrongly recorded in the account of complainant showing withdrawal of Rs.1 lakh through ATM of 26.7.2010, which might be due to technical fault in the ATM machine for negligence on the part of official of opponent SBH. This fact also fortify from undisputed facts that though the amount of Rs.20,000/- was received to the opponent SBH, it was not credited in the account of complainant till receipt of complaint from complainant dated 14.8.2014. Opponent SBH should not have kept such amount under suspense till receipt of complaint from complainant. Therefore this fact itself suffice to hold that there was negligence on the part of opponent SBH.
13. For the foregoing reasons it is obvious that on 26.7.2014 complainant has not received any amount through ATM machine of opponent SBI. That day she only received only Rs.40,000/- through ATM machine of SBH but debit entries of Rs.1 lakh are wrongly recorded in the account of complainant. It must be due to technical fault in the ATM machine for the negligence on the part of officials of opponent SBH. Thus it is obvious that opponent SBH itself has committed deficiency in service by not maintaining account of complainant properly. It is also obvious from undisputed facts that complainant Sushila is not a consumer of opponent SBI and therefore complaint against opponent SBI is not maintainable. However, District Consumer Forum committed error in holding both opponents 1 & 2 jointly liable, which cannot be sustained.
14. For the foregoing reasons appeal No.461/2014 of opponent SBI deserves to be allowed and appeal No.437/2014 of SBH deserves to be 7 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
12. On perusal of copy of letter dated 21.5.2011 of opponent SBI to opponent SBH we find much force in the submission of Mr.Paithankar advocate appearing for opponent SBI. This letter clearly shows that no excess amount of Rs.40,000/- is received on 26.7.2010 or no ATM related suspense entry is pending with it. But it appears from the undisputed facts that debit entries of Rs.1 lakh are wrongly recorded in the account of complainant showing withdrawal of Rs.1 lakh through ATM of 26.7.2010, which might be due to technical fault in the ATM machine for negligence on the part of official of opponent SBH. This fact also fortify from undisputed facts that though the amount of Rs.20,000/- was received to the opponent SBH, it was not credited in the account of complainant till receipt of complaint from complainant dated 14.8.2014. Opponent SBH should not have kept such amount under suspense till receipt of complaint from complainant. Therefore this fact itself suffice to hold that there was negligence on the part of opponent SBH.
13. For the foregoing reasons it is obvious that on 26.7.2014 complainant has not received any amount through ATM machine of opponent SBI. That day she only received only Rs.40,000/- through ATM machine of SBH but debit entries of Rs.1 lakh are wrongly recorded in the account of complainant. It must be due to technical fault in the ATM machine for the negligence on the part of officials of opponent SBH. Thus it is obvious that opponent SBH itself has committed deficiency in service by not maintaining account of complainant properly. It is also obvious from undisputed facts that complainant Sushila is not a consumer of opponent SBI and therefore complaint against opponent SBI is not maintainable. However, District Consumer Forum committed error in holding both opponents 1 & 2 jointly liable, which cannot be sustained.
14. For the foregoing reasons appeal No.461/2014 of opponent SBI deserves to be allowed and appeal No.437/2014 of SBH deserves to be 7 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
12. On perusal of copy of letter dated 21.5.2011 of opponent SBI to opponent SBH we find much force in the submission of Mr.Paithankar advocate appearing for opponent SBI. This letter clearly shows that no excess amount of Rs.40,000/- is received on 26.7.2010 or no ATM related suspense entry is pending with it. But it appears from the undisputed facts that debit entries of Rs.1 lakh are wrongly recorded in the account of complainant showing withdrawal of Rs.1 lakh through ATM of 26.7.2010, which might be due to technical fault in the ATM machine for negligence on the part of official of opponent SBH. This fact also fortify from undisputed facts that though the amount of Rs.20,000/- was received to the opponent SBH, it was not credited in the account of complainant till receipt of complaint from complainant dated 14.8.2014. Opponent SBH should not have kept such amount under suspense till receipt of complaint from complainant. Therefore this fact itself suffice to hold that there was negligence on the part of opponent SBH.
13. For the foregoing reasons it is obvious that on 26.7.2014 complainant has not received any amount through ATM machine of opponent SBI. That day she only received only Rs.40,000/- through ATM machine of SBH but debit entries of Rs.1 lakh are wrongly recorded in the account of complainant. It must be due to technical fault in the ATM machine for the negligence on the part of officials of opponent SBH. Thus it is obvious that opponent SBH itself has committed deficiency in service by not maintaining account of complainant properly. It is also obvious from undisputed facts that complainant Sushila is not a consumer of opponent SBI and therefore complaint against opponent SBI is not maintainable. However, District Consumer Forum committed error in holding both opponents 1 & 2 jointly liable, which cannot be sustained.
14. For the foregoing reasons appeal No.461/2014 of opponent SBI deserves to be allowed and appeal No.437/2014 of SBH deserves to be 7 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
12. On perusal of copy of letter dated 21.5.2011 of opponent SBI to opponent SBH we find much force in the submission of Mr.Paithankar advocate appearing for opponent SBI. This letter clearly shows that no excess amount of Rs.40,000/- is received on 26.7.2010 or no ATM related suspense entry is pending with it. But it appears from the undisputed facts that debit entries of Rs.1 lakh are wrongly recorded in the account of complainant showing withdrawal of Rs.1 lakh through ATM of 26.7.2010, which might be due to technical fault in the ATM machine for negligence on the part of official of opponent SBH. This fact also fortify from undisputed facts that though the amount of Rs.20,000/- was received to the opponent SBH, it was not credited in the account of complainant till receipt of complaint from complainant dated 14.8.2014. Opponent SBH should not have kept such amount under suspense till receipt of complaint from complainant. Therefore this fact itself suffice to hold that there was negligence on the part of opponent SBH.
13. For the foregoing reasons it is obvious that on 26.7.2014 complainant has not received any amount through ATM machine of opponent SBI. That day she only received only Rs.40,000/- through ATM machine of SBH but debit entries of Rs.1 lakh are wrongly recorded in the account of complainant. It must be due to technical fault in the ATM machine for the negligence on the part of officials of opponent SBH. Thus it is obvious that opponent SBH itself has committed deficiency in service by not maintaining account of complainant properly. It is also obvious from undisputed facts that complainant Sushila is not a consumer of opponent SBI and therefore complaint against opponent SBI is not maintainable. However, District Consumer Forum committed error in holding both opponents 1 & 2 jointly liable, which cannot be sustained.
14. For the foregoing reasons appeal No.461/2014 of opponent SBI deserves to be allowed and appeal No.437/2014 of SBH deserves to be 8 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014 dismissed modifying impugned order directing opponent SBH only to pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest, compensation and cost of the proceedings as quantified by impugned order. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal No.461/2014 of SBI is allowed and impugned order against it is set aside.
2. Appeal No.437/2014 of SBH is dismissed and impugned order is modified as under.
3. Opponent SBH shall pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with 6% interest with effect from 26.7.2014 and compensation Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, else complainant would be entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a.
4. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Mane
8 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
dismissed modifying impugned order directing opponent SBH only to pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest, compensation and cost of the proceedings as quantified by impugned order. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal No.461/2014 of SBI is allowed and impugned order against it is set aside.
2. Appeal No.437/2014 of SBH is dismissed and impugned order is modified as under.
3. Opponent SBH shall pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with 6% interest with effect from 26.7.2014 and compensation Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, else complainant would be entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a.
4. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Mane
8 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
dismissed modifying impugned order directing opponent SBH only to pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest, compensation and cost of the proceedings as quantified by impugned order. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal No.461/2014 of SBI is allowed and impugned order against it is set aside.
2. Appeal No.437/2014 of SBH is dismissed and impugned order is modified as under.
3. Opponent SBH shall pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with 6% interest with effect from 26.7.2014 and compensation Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, else complainant would be entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a.
4. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Mane
8 F.A..No.:437 & 461/2014
dismissed modifying impugned order directing opponent SBH only to pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest, compensation and cost of the proceedings as quantified by impugned order. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal No.461/2014 of SBI is allowed and impugned order against it is set aside.
2. Appeal No.437/2014 of SBH is dismissed and impugned order is modified as under.
3. Opponent SBH shall pay to the complainant amount of Rs.40,000/- with 6% interest with effect from 26.7.2014 and compensation Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, else complainant would be entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a.
4. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane