DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

          C.C. CASE NO. 94 OF 2018

DATE OF FILING: 14/08/2018    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  01/04/2019

Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member         :   Jhunu Prasad                            

COMPLAINANT              :  Khokon Chandra Haldar, S/O – Kiran Chandra Haldar, Residing at – Patherdabi, P.O. - Bansra, P.S. - Canning, Dist. - South 24 Parganas, Pin - 743363  

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                         :  1. The Branch Manager S.B.I Champahati, Branch - Champahati Chandimata Complex, P.O. - Champahati, P.S.-Baruipur, Pin-743330.

                                                  2.   The Branch Manager S.B.I Baruipur Branch, Zila Parisod Building, Branch Code - 1490, P.O. & P.S. – Baruipur, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 144.

_______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

            This is a complaint filed under section 12, CP Act, 1986 by the complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. bank.

            Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

            The complainant has maintained an S/B account and also a mutual fund account bearing no. 34426736921 and LS15031230SACTST191117 respectively with O.P. no 1. One day, he went to withdraw money from his S/B account and it was reported to him by the bank employee that there was no money in his account. They also asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 200/- for getting the statement of the statement of the account. The complainant deposited Rs. 200/- accordingly. But statement of account was not given to him by O.P.-1; O.P.-1 only dragged the matter by hook or by crook. Therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case, praying for passing an order for recovery of the amount of Rs. 33095.62/- which was lying in his account with accrued interest thereon and also for compensation etc. Hence, this case.

            The O.Ps have been contesting the case by filing written statement wherein it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer and therefore he is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. According to them, the complainant has ATM facilities in his account. The ATM no. and the PIN are the exclusive properties of the complainant and complainant cannot pass on these things to anybody else. It is the complainant who has withdrawn the money from his account on 22.02.2018 using his ATM card and confidential PIN. He has kept all these things suppressed in his petition of complainant. He is not a consumer, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the bank authority and therefore the case should be dismissed in limini.

            Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

                                                POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

  EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES    

Petition of complainant is treated as evidence of complainant, vide his petition dated 05.11.2018. Evidence is led on affidavit by the O.Ps no. 1 & 2.

                                       DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no. 1 & 2 :

            In the present case, the complainant has filed photocopy of his passbook and it is seen these from that Rs. 30,023.60/- has been withdrawn on 22.02.2018 in three phases with the help of ATM card. It is true that ATM is the exclusive property of the card holder. The card holder has also a PIN and without this PIN, no one will be able to withdraw money from the account of the ATM card holder. But, in one case, money can be withdrawn from the account of the ATM card holder and that occurs at merchant outlet only. In merchant outlet, whenever an ATM card is swiped, an OTP no. is sent to the ATM card holder in his registered mobile from the bank where lies account of the said account holder. If this OTP no. is again sent to the bank by the ATM card holder which is the owner of registered mobile also, the bank gets the clearance from the ATM card holder and the money stands automatically withdrawn as soon as clearance is received by bank by way of acceptance of OTP. From this process  of withdrawal of money from the account with the help of ATM card, it is clear that no one will be able to withdraw money from the account of ATM card holder unless the said card holder gives PIN or OTP to the bank. Upon analysis of these facts, we are of the opinion that it is none but the complainant who has perhaps caused some mistake in handling the ATM card and that’s why the money has been withdrawn from his account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. A guilty mind is always suspicious. The complainant has not divulged the fact of withdrawal money by ATM card in his petition of complainant. He has suppressed all these material facts in his petition of complainant. Suppression of these material fact by the complainant also makes it clear that the complainant himself is guilty of deficiency in discharge of his bounden duty and as such he is deemed to be not entitled to any relief or reliefs as prayed for.

            In the result, the case fails.

            Hence,

 ORDERED

            That the complainant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but without any cost.

Register-in-charge is directed to supply a copy of this judgment at once free of cost to the parties concerned.

I/We agree                                                               Member                                President

                        Directed and corrected by me

                                                               President