IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

PRESENT: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER F. A.No.154/2018 (Against the order made in C.C.No.32/2015 dated 02.03.2017 on the file of the District Forum, Theni.)

MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Theni – Madurai Road, Theni Town, Theni District. Appellant/1^st Opposite Party -Vs-

1. M.Sarveswaran, S/o Muthurajan, Door No.90, East Street, Uppukottai Village, Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District. 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Cumbum-Theni Main Road, P.C.Patti, Theni Town, Theni District. 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party

3. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District Police Office, Theni. 3rd Respondent/3rd Opposite Party

4. The Inspector of Police, P.C.Patti Police Station, P.C.Patti Village, Theni District. 4th Respondent/4th Opposite Party Counsel for Appellant/Opposite party-1 : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent-1/Complainant : Served Called Absent. Counsel for Respondent-2/Opposite Party-2 : Served Called Absent.

Counsel for Respodents-3&4/Opp.Parties-3&4 : Given-up.

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 11.07.2022 and on hearing the arguments of appellant side and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the 1^st opposite party against the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Theni, made in C.C.No.32/2015 dated 02.03.2017.

2. The facts of the case is as follows:

The complainant is having an account in the first opposite party bank. He obtained an agricultural loan and it was credited in his account. The complainant on 31.01.2015 withdraw Rs.10,000/- from Karur Vysya Bank ATM machine at Uppukottai. On 01.02.2015 the complainant went to second opposite party / State Bank of India ATM machine at P.C.Patti for withdrawing Rs.40,000/-. The watchman at the ATM booth informed the complainant to withdraw Rs.10,000/- each for four times, instead of withdrawing the total amount of Rs.40,000/-at one stroke. Hence, he withdraw Rs.10,000/- at 6.55 a.m. and second time withdraw Rs.10,000/- at 6.57 a.m. and third time withdraw Rs.10,000/- at 6.58 a.m. But, on his fourth attempt at 6.59 a.m. the amount was not delivered to him but a slip came out showing a deduction of Rs.10,000/- Immediately the complainant along with his friend went to first opposite party and made a complaint. Though the manager agreed to take action. No development was subsequently made. So, he complained to the Superintendent of police the third opposite party and it was enquired by the Inspector of Police the fourth opposite party. No CCTV footage was produced by the bank authorities. Hence, they committed deficiency of service and the complaint is filed seeking the refund of Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., and to pay Rs.50,000/- compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.25,000/- compensation for deficiency of service and also to pay Rs.14,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

3. The first and second opposite parties filed their written versions stating that, the amount was only withdrawn by the complainant and as per the entry in the Pass Book cum ATM machine the amount has been withdrawn only by the complainant and there is no deficiency of service.

4. Similarly, the third and fourth opposite parties filed their written version stating that they are police officials and there is no privity of contract between them and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

5. The District Forum after perusal of evidence and arguments, partly allowed the complaint and directing the first and second opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to return a sum of Rs.10,000/-, and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- t