Appeal fi led on: 30.10.2019 Appeal disposed oni 7L.72.2025 THE I(ARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 1lth DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 scl29lAlt486l2ot9 PRESENT CORAM: Hon'ble SRI RAVI SHANI(AR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Hon'ble SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER CANARA BANK, Main Branch, ,,,Appellant/s Chickmagalur, Chickmagalur- District.

Represented by its mangager, Py ^{Srf. Naoeen Tao, Adttocdte)}

-Versas-

S.R. Poornesh S/o Ramegowda, Aged about 37 years, Working as FDA, DDPI Office, Near Zilla Panchayath K.M.Road, Chikmagalur .,.Respond.ent R/ o Siragapura village, Malalur Post, Chikmagalur Taluk, (Notlce senpd on Respondent)

ORDER BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Appellant/Opposite party in Consumer Complaint No.3O/2O18 preferred this appeal against the order dated

21.O9.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chickmagalur the Opposite Party prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allow the appea-l in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard further from appellant.

3. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the complainant alleged deficiency in service against this OP for not received within an amount of Rs.40,000/- which was fraudulently withdrawn through using dupticate ATM Card at Goa for an amount of Rs.40,000/- at ICICI Bank ATM Centre. The District Commission without considering the defence taken by this appellant had allowed the complaint. No reasons were assigned for allowing the complaint. The District Commission fails to appreciate the defence taken by this appellant that the complainant had not produced any document to show that the ATM Card was duplicated by any unknown person and transacted with the same. In fact as per the records, the ATM transaction was successful by providing the pin to the ATM Card provided to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn the duplicate cards cannot be used in the ATM centre. The complainant fails to prove that the ATM Card was duplicated and further complaint was given after lapse of hve days after transaction the facts are not considered by the District Commission as the transaction was successful there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this appellant. Further the complainant has not made the ICICI Bank as a necessary party to answer whether the transaction was successful. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission lacks legality. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint by setting aside the order passed the District Commission.

4. Perused the certificated copy of the order passed by the District Commission and memorandum of appeal and the documents produced we noticed that the complainant has not explained proper reason why he had given a complaint after lapse of 5 days of noticing the transaction. Further, no iota of evidence produced before the District Commission or before this Commission to show that the ATM Card was manipulated or duplicated. The transaction took place at Goa at the ATM Center established by ICICI Bank. The ICICI Bank was not made a parf5r before the District Commission to prove whether this transaction was fraudulent or not. Unless and until, the pin provided the amount in the ATM cannot be dispensed. Here the transaction according to the appellant was successful as the arnount was debited from his account. Subsequently, complainant cannot allege deficiency in seryice merely because of debit of an amount from his account as per the withdrawal at ATM by using the ATM Card. The withdrawal of any amount on the ATM Centers by utilizing ATM Card is beyond the control of the Bank. Hence, the complainant utterly fails to establish there is a deficiency in service on the part of this appellant. Further, the District Commission had not assigned proper reasons for allowing the complaint.

5. On perusal of the order no opinion was given with respect to the evidences produced by both the parties. The order passed by Distric