West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/396/2015

Sri Sudhansu Sardar, S/O Late Mangal Chandra Sardar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The General Manager, State Bank Of India. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajoy Chakraborty.

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _396_ OF ___2015_

 

DATE OF FILING : 7.9.2015                       DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  06.03.2017

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT        :    Sri Sudhansu Sardar,s/o late Mangal Chandra Sardar , Vill. Raghunandapur, P.O Naridana, P.S. Baruipur, South 24-Pargasnas, Pin-743330.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :   1. The General Manager, State Bank of India, No.1, Strand Road, Sambridhi Bhavan, Kolakta – 1.

                                              2.     Manager.S.B I, Champahati Branch, Pin-743330, South 24-Parganas.  

                                          

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the ground that he is a Savings Bank Account with the State Bank of India, Champahati Branch being no. 30541151267 , Branch Code 10538. It has further stated that on 4.2.2015 when he was returning home three men being armed with iron rod and other weapons snatched everything including his bag wherein ATM Card and Pin number of the Card lay at the same night they withdrew Rs.40,000/- in three installments from Khas Mallick and Champahati Station Road. The mater was informed to the local P.S on 5.2.2015 i.e. Baruipur P.S and FIR was drawn being no.169 on that date under section 379 IPC on the basis of GD no.423 at 14.25 p.m. The matter was informed to the Sub Divisional Police Officer , Baruipur on 6.2.2015 and SBI Champahati Branch on 6.2.2015 but no favourable action was taken from their end. Hence, this complaint with a prayer for payment of loss of Rs.40,000/- , compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lacs, litigation cost Rs.60,000/-.

At the time of admission hearing vide order no.2  we hold that O.P-1 , General Manager of SBI , Strand Road, is unnecessary party, for which,  case is not proceeding against O.P-1, that is why, case is running against O.P-2 since there is a prima facie deficiency in service against O.P-2.

O.P-2 is contesting the case by filing written version. It is the case of the O.P-2 that the present case is not maintainable since the ATM Card together with Pin has already been snatched by the miscreants on 4.2.2014 and on the said night amount of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn and complainant blocked the card on 5.2.2015 which is a due diligence on the part of the Bank after getting information the card was blocked.   It has admitted that on 11.2.2015 one police personnel made a visit their bank and got the Pin number of the ATM Card and sent a letter the controller for CCTV Footage and the Engineer in his report mentioned that hardware failure unable to provide the footage of CCTV but he has not mentioned that dude to delayed information the footage could not be produced.

 

 

Accordingly,O.P-2  claimed that the bank has no laches regarding the withdrawal of the said money when the complainant did not strictly complied the rules and conditions of using the ATM Card. It is the further case of the O.P Bank that as per rules of the ATM Card Pin together with ATM Card should not be kept but complainant did not comply the same, for which, complainant has admitted in the complaint application in para 4 that three men with iron rods and other weapons snatched everything including his bag wherein ATM Card and Pin Number of the card lay and at the said night miscreants withdrew Rs.40,000/- from Khasmallick and Champahati ATM ,for which O.P-2 prays for dismissal of the case.

Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.

                                                                        Decision with reasons

Admittedly ATM Card of the Bank along with Pin number lying there were stolen for which FIR was lodged under section 379 IPC. It is unfortunate to point out that although complainant has admitted in his complaint petition that ATM Card and Pin number was lying there and also informed SBI Champahati Branch that his ATM Card wherein on the envelop the pin number was written ,for which, by using the said ATM Card Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn by the miscreants from SBI, Khasmallick Branch Rs.20,000/- and Champahati Branch Rs. 20,000/-.

\But it is curious enough that complainant although admitted that Pin Number and ATM was lying in the said bag which was stolen by the miscreants who at time of question put by the O.P-2 in questionnaire no.5           “Is the ATM Card and Pin number were kept together”? But complainant replied “No”. This is undoubtedly not fair and suppression of material facts, as because we are aware that Hon’ble National Commission has already held as well as the Hon’ble State Commission that until and unless the Pin Number is stolen how the money will be withdrawn by using the ATM Card. Herein the complainant has admitted the same only in his complaint application but also informed the Branch Manager of O.P-2. But at the time of reply to the specific question the answer was negative. It is also noted that ATM Card was blocked on 5.2.2015. The complainant ought to have informed the Customer Care of SBI soon after loss of ATM along with the Pin Number and if it was happened on same night  then the card was blocked and miscreants were unable to withdraw the money.  So, we find that O.P-2 has no role regarding withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- by the miscreants and complainant has admitted in his reply to the question no.8 that FIR was drawn and charge sheet submitted being no.2076 on 31.12.2015 under section 292 I.P.C and two persons were arrested and they obtained bail and  Rs.1000/-  was seized from the said miscreants.

 

Thus we find that the O.P-2 is not at all liable for withdrawal of Rs.40,000/-. It was the fault of the complainant to keep the Pin Number along with the ATM Card ,that is why, Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn from the two Branch of SBI in the said night.

It has come to our knowledge from the written version of the O.P Bank at the bottom of page 2 para 7 that “ on 11.2.2015 one police personnel has made a visit &  from him , we got the Pin number and sent a letter to the Controller  for CCTV Footage and Engineer in his report has mentioned that Hardware failure , unable to prove the video footage of CCTV and the said Engineer did not mention that due to delayed information the footage could not be produced. So, there is some lack of supervision on the part of the Manager, SBI , Champahati Branch ,that is why, the CCTV Footage was not available. If the Branch Manager was so vigilant along with the Officers who dealt with the ATM matter, then definitely CCTV Footage would have been available and thereby police can proceed and the said case may be solved. But mere arrest of two persons and seize of Rs.1000/- cannot be said to be sufficient to prove that the said arrested persons have withdrawn the amount using the ATM card and pin number  since ATM Card and Pin number were not seized. It is well known to us that Rs.1000/- is not sufficient nowadays for  almost everybody keeps the same and it would be very difficult for the complainant to prove that said money goes out from the ATM counter while the said arrested persons using ATM and pin number  of the complainant. in the criminal court  So, sheer negligence and lack of supervision of the Bank Manager of Champahati Branch, State Bank of India  cannot be overlooked. We are also very much anxious that if these things is going on then it would very difficult to keep in touch with the video footage as and when CCTV is  a mandatory in the ATM Counter. But due lack of supervision ,which we must have to repeat once again  , of the Champahati  Branch and Khasmallick Branch of SBI is proved for which SBI, Champahati Branch should be liable to pay a token amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- so that none of the Branch Manager will act such type of lack of supervision over their branch and thereby the consumer will get proper service  in all respect including ATM Counter from banking system.

 Apart from that, we do not find any valid reasons to direct the O.P Bank for payment of Rs.40,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.1 lacs and litigation cost Rs.60,000/- as claimed by the complainant. That prayer is totally refused and inspite of that a token amount of Rs. 10,000/- has to be paid by the O.P-2 for their lack of supervision ,that is why, CCTV footage was not available and the miscreants were not identified and that responsibility of the Bank cannot be brushed aside at this stage by the Branch Manager of SBI, Champahati Branch, State Bank of India and that amount shall be paid to the complainant in this changes circumstances as consolation.

Hence,

                                                                                    Ordered

That  the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed in part against O.P-2. .

O.P-2 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as a token compensation for consolation  to the complainant  for lack of supervision of the Bank , within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which  complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

But other prayers of the complainant are refused in light of the observation made in above.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

 

                                                       Member                                                                President

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                               

                                                Ordered

That  the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed in part against O.P-2. .

O.P-2 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as a token compensation for consolation  to the complainant  for lack of supervision of the Bank , within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which  complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

But other prayers of the complainant are refused in light of the observation made in above.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

 

                                                       Member                                                                President