Filed on: 19.12.2014 Disposed on: 06.03.2025 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF MARCH 2025 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1707/2014 The Assistant General Manager, …… Appellant/s State Bank of Bikaner &

Jaipur, Gandhinagar Branch, No.122, 6^th Cross Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 09, Represented by Sri S.K. Singh, Assistant General Manager.

(By Sri R. Raja, Advocate)

V/s

1. Sri K.G. Muthyalappa, Major, Contractor, ……Respondent/s Pathanjalinagara, Pavagada Town 561 202.

(By Sri S.M.Y)

2. The Manager, State Bank Mysore, Pavagada Branch, Tumkur District, Karnataka State.

(By Sri T.P. Muthanna, Advocate)

ORDER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER

1. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.18.09.2014 passed in CC.No.1662/2013 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.

2. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that the complainant was having SB Account No.54043287163 with the 2nd Opposite Party Bank. On 22.02.2012 his credit balance is of Rs.13,89,574/- as per the mini statement at about 11.56 a.m. Again at about 12.05 p.m. he obtained another mini statement from ATM which shows that the complainant has drawn Rs.35,000/- from his SB account through ATM. The complainant was shocked to see the same that though he has not drawn the said amount, the same has been debited to account. The complainant immediately approached the Opposite Party No.2 bank and lodged a complaint on 23.02.2012 and 06.03.2012, but, they have not given any positive reply. Further, the complainant sent a legal notice and the Opposite Party No.2 replied that they have written letter to General Manager, Bangalore on 12.04.2012. The complainant further submits that his SB Account stands jointly both in his name and his son Mr. G.Prathap who is residing in abroad. In support of the same, he produced original passbook. Inspite of repeated requests and legal notice, the Opposite Parties failed to credit Rs.35,000/- to his SB account. Hence, the complaint.

3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their version. The Opposite Party No.1 contended that the complainant does not have account with his bank, hence, cannot allege deficiency in service on their part. All the State Bank ATMs are networking and any customer of other state banks can use the ATM facility of Opposite Party No.1 bank and transact in the said ATM. It is only a value added service offered by Opposite Party No.1 as per the banking regulations. The Opposite Party No.1 further contended that the Opposite Party No.1 had not received any oral or written complaint from the complainant in respect of the alleged transaction. On 22.02.2012 the Opposite Party No.1 noticed that there were two transactions took place as stated by the complainant and the ATM will disburse the cash only after validating the correct pincode for the card inserted by the cardholder and as such amount of Rs.35,000/- has been disbursed to the card holder at 12.03 p.m. The Opposite Party No.1 denied that the complainant has not withdrawn the money from his account on 22.02.2012. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. The Opposite Party No.2 in their version admitted the issuance of ATM card to the complainant to his SB account. The Opposite Party No.2 denied that the complainant has balance amount of Rs.13,89,574/- as on 22.02.2012. The Opposite Party No.2 attended the complaint made by the complainant and after enquiry it was understood that on 22.02.2012 SB account of the complainant operated by using his ATM card at first at 11.56 a.m. through Opposite Party No.1 branch ATM and again he has withdrawn Rs.35,000/- at 12.03 p.m. in the same ATM. Thereafter, again he used his A