State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Basireddy Chinna Ankalugari ... vs Andhra Bank, Kadapa on 7 November, 2013
P. STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 901/2012 against CC 99/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa YSR District
Between
:
Smt.
Basireddy Chinna Ankalugari Rukmini,
W/o
Viswanatha Reddy, Hindu, aged about years
House
wife, Resident of D. No. 1/2220-1,
Housing
Board Colony, Kadapa
. Appellant/complainant
And
The
Branch Manager,
Andhra
Bank, Dwaraka towers,
7
Roads Circle,
Kadapa Pin 516 001 .. Respondent/opposite party
Counsel
for the Appellant : Mr. K. Venkateswarlu.
Counsel
for the Respondent : Mr. K. Sridhar Rao
Coram ;
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao
Honble Incharge
President
Sri T. Ashok
Kumar .. Honble Member
And Sri S. Bhujanga Rao.. Honble Member Thursday, the Seventh Day of November Two Thousand Thirteen Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 10.09.2012 in CC 99/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa YSR District. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to here-under :
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that one S V Krishna Reddy who is the uncle of the complainant was having SB Account No. 008610011200019 in the OP bank. The complainant was informed by her uncle that she is the nominee for the purpose of the said Account. On 28.10.2011 at 5.00 PM while undergoing the treatment at healing touch Hospital, Secunderabad the said S. V. Krishna Reddy died. The debit and credit cards of the said Account holder was stolen by somebody.
Subsequently the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs.1,13,500/- was drawn on 27.10.2011 and 31.10.2011 from various ATMs in Hyderabad City. She brought about the said drawls to the notice of OP through her husband viz., Viswanatha Reddy. She had sent a registered letter dated 5.11.2011 to the OP requesting to provide Video footages recorded in CC Video cameras in all ATMs at Hyderabad between 27.10.2011 and 31.10.2011 so as to file a complaint before police with regard to the above money drawls. But the opposite party did not respond for it. Then a legal notice dt. 22.3.2012 was sent to the Bank but they did not give reply to it. The said acts of the OP amount to negligence and deficiency in service and they caused mental agony to the complainant and hence the complaint to direct the OP to provide video footage in the CC video cameras in All ATMS at Hyderabad between 27.10.2011 to 31.10.2011, Rs.3000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- towards costs of the complaint.
3. OP filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under :
The complainant is not at all the nominee of the Account holder S. V. Krishna Reddy and the complainant is under obligation to prove that debit and credit cards were stolen. OP bank is not aware whether somebody had withdrawn Rs.1,13,500/- between 27.10.2011 to 31.10.2011 and the husband of the complainant did not bring any such aspects to the notice of the OP bank. However, the bank received letter dt. 5.11.2011 from the complainant to provide footage of CC video in all ATMs in Hyderabad during the said period. Had the debit and credit cards were stolen it was the duty of the complainant to inform the same to the OP and request to freeze the Account but she did not take any such steps. She even did not give complaint to police. it is impossible to provide Video footages of all ATMs because Andhra Bank did not install such CC cameras in all ATMs and in some of the ATMs centres security guards only were appointed round the clock. The complainant did not describe in her complaint whether the amounts were withdrawn from ATMs of Andhra bank or some other ATMs belonging to other banks as such it is not possible to enquire into the matter as from which ATMs the amounts were drawn. If the amounts were drawn from ATMs of other banks she has to give complaint to that particular bank or banks. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit reiterating her case as set out in the complaint and marked Ex. A-1 to A 12 and no such affidavit filed by the Ops and also documents
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record including the written arguments submitted by the complainant , the District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the complaint holding that there I is no deficiency in service on the part of OP bank.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said dismissal , the unsuccessful complainants filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the version of the OP is highly improbable and unbelievable and that the OP bank failed to file single document whereas she filed Ex. A1 to A12 and that the main intention of the complainant is to know as to who is the real culprit in withdrawing the amounts from ATMs in Hyderabad and that without appreciating her contentions the complaint was dismissed and thus prayed to allow the Appeal, set aside the impugned order and consequently to allow the complaint as prayed for.
7. Heard counsel for appellant complainant with reference to grounds of appeal and written arguments were submitted on behalf of OP.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts?
9. There is no dispute that one S. V. Krishna Reddy was having Account bearing No. having SB Account No. 008610011200019 in the OP bank. The complainant claims that she is the niece of the said Account holder so also his nominee for the purpose of the said Account. But she did not substantiate with any convincing material that she is the nominee of the said Krishna Reddy for the purpose of the said Account. In Ex. A12 pass book also there is no such a mention and the relevant column is kept blank and thus safely it can be concluded that S. V. Krishna Reddy did not nominate the complainant or any other person as the nominee to the said Account. She did not mention as to who are the class I heirs of the said deceased and also whether they are alive or not. Therefore, certainly, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint excluding the class I heirs. Ass seen from Ex A2 Photostat copy of policy, details of LIC of India issued in favour of the said S. V. Krishna Reddy and Ex. A9 Photostat copy of individual health Insurance Policy ,. 2009 issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd in favour of the said Krishna Reddy the complainant is shown as his nominee. But basing on such a nomination she cannot claim that she is nominee in respect of the said SB Account. Death of S. V. Krishna Reddy due to ill health on 28.10.2011 at Hyderabad has been established by Ex. A10 copy of death certificate issued by competent authority. The complainant contended that by the time of the death of the said Krishna Reddy his credit and debit cards were stolen by somebody and an amount of Rs.1,13,500/- was withdrawn by somebody in between 27.10.2011 and 31.10.2011 from various ATMs in Hyderabad City. Admittedly on 27.10.2011 he was alive and there is no dependable evidence on record to say that his movements restricted to bed on the said 27.10.2011. Therefore possibility of the said Krishna Reddy withdrawing the amount on 27.10.2011 cannot be ruled out. The details of such withdrawals ie the amount particulars and ATM bank centres have not been furnished by the complainant. She did not lodge any compliant before the police or in the OP bank nor requested the bank to freeze the said Account alleging theft of the credit and debit cards. Here subsequent conduct in keeping silence till the complaint is filed improbablizes her plea aforesaid. There are thousands of ATMs in Hyderabad city and it is the contention of the OP bank that all the ATM banks are not provided with CC cameras and in some of the ATM Centres round the clock security is being provided and in such circumstances and also for want of details of the ATM centres it is impossible for the OP to provide Video footages of CC cameras of all ATMs of Andhra Bank and other banks. The OP did not make head office of OP bank as party to the case because ATMs of respondent bank at Hyderabad were provided by the head office but not by the OP bank branch and it is also a point against the complainant. The banks would not undertake any responsibility for an unauthorized withdrawal from the account of the deceased as they are not at fault. There is no negligence or deficient service on the part of the OP as alleged. The District Forum discussed all the aspects in correct manner and dismissed the complaint. When the documents filed by the complainant do not support her case, non-filing of the documents by OP is of no consequence. Viewed in any point, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed confirming the impugned order.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum and consequently the complaint stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DATED : 07.11.2013.