PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 11/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Sushil Kumar Panigrahi, Aged about 66 years,

S/O- Late Gouranga Charan Panigrahi,

R/O- Matru Vihar, Sambalpur Town, Po-Budharaja,

PS-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur.                                                                     ......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Chairman, Punjab National Bank,

Plot No. 4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075

2. Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank,

Jagmara, PO/Ps-Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751030.

3. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank,

Budharaja, Sambalpur, Po-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali

4. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank,

Nayapada, Po-Sambalpur, Ps-Town,

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. P.K. Mishra & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                       :- Dr. M. Panda

Date of Filing:08.01.2024,  Date of Hearing :05.11.2024,  Date of Judgement :10.12.2024

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is having saving Bank A/C No. 04010118910 on at Golebazar, Sambalpur and account balance on 17.03.2021 was Rs. 1,11,258/-. Mobile No. 94371-27229 is linked with the account. On 17.03.2021 the Complainant applied for an ATM Card and it was issued for the period 01/2021 to 01/2028 bearing card No. 5085460044125881. ATM was activated on the same day and Rs. 500/- was withdrawn.

On 12.05.2023 when the Complainant visited the Branch to withdraw cash he learnt that Rs. 84,000/- had been withdrawn fraudulently from different ATM counters which has not been withdrawn by Complainant. The following amounts were withdrawn on different dates:

On alert message has been received on 12.05.2023 the Branch Manager, Nayapara Branch was intimated. Vide letter dated 15.05.2023 the B.M. replied that with card No. 50885460044125881 amount has been withdrawn. Mobile number is linked since 02.12.2017 and three number of card has been issued to the Complainant. The rest two cards are with the Bank. The Complainant wrote to higher quarters of the O.Ps but it was in vain. There is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2. The O.P.No.4 on behalf of O.Ps submitted that the Complainant opened an account with U.B.I. since 06.11.2024. The said UBI is merged with PNB having A.C No. 040101011 mobile No. 9437127229 he registered one. On 01.03.2021 card No. 5085460044125311 was delivered to the Complainant against A/C No. 0401010118910.

The following ATM Cards delivered to the Complainant.

Date                               Card No.                                  A/C No.

1. 17.03.2021         5085460044125881                 0401010118910
2. 16.02.2022          5085460061721604                0401010118910

The system generated alerts/documents are as follows:-

Date                                          Debit                             Number

30.04.2021/11.05.46 AMRs. 10,000/-4636470705479138200

30.04.2021/11.06.45 AMRs. 09,000/-5716470706459074800

30.04.2021/11.07.54 AMRs. 1,000/-5706470707545533600

18.05.2021/10.38.34 AMRs. 10,000/-KL51A383461OVIF411104W49WPLOEX8FPNB

18.05.2021/10.39.35 AMRs. 10,000/-KL51A3936741HIF411104KCMUDSCQX55PNB

23.06.2021/09.42.19 AMRs. 10,000/- 6906653742205400400.

23.06.2021/09.43.22 AMRs. 10,000/-6306653743234186100

09.07.2021/10.19.08 AMRs. 4,000/-KL79A19008352YIF411044CXKV55EWISPNB

09.07.2021/10.22.17 AMRs. 4,000/-KL79A221888931F4111049DJ5TIGTIBIPPNB

​09.07.2021/10.24.37 AMRs. 4,000/-Network Failure

09.07.2021/10.26.37 AMRs. 4000/-KL79A263748631F411104N90JIDBPBBB09PNB

09.07.2021/10.27.26 AMRs. 4000/-KL79A2727598FIF411104B90JIDPBBB09PNB

O.P.No.4 replied the Complainant to his complaint dated 13.05.2023. There is no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Complaint dated 07.06.2023.
2. Complaint dated 07.06.2023 to chairman, PNB
3. Complaint dated 13.05.2023 received by O.P.No.4 on 15.05.2023.
4. A/C statement A/C No. 0401010118910 issued on 12.05.2023.

The O.P.No.4 filed the following documents:

1. ATM opening form in United Bank of India dated 06.11.2014.
2. ATM delivery register extract dated 01.03.2021, 17.03.2021 and 16.02.2022 against A/C No. 5088460061721604 by the O.Ps.
3. Specimen signature of the Complainant.
4. System generated documents reflecting delivery of alert SMS on 30.04.2021 at 11.05.46AM, 30.04.2021 at 11.06.45AM, 30.04.201 at 11.07.54AM, 18.05.2021at 10.38.34AM, 18.05.2021 at 10.39.35 AM, 23.06.2021 at 09.42.19AM 23.06.2021 at 09.43.22AM, 09.07.2021 at 10.19.08AM, 09.07.2021 at 10.22.17AM at 10.26.37AM, 09.07.2021 at 10.27.26AM.
5. Reply of O.P.No.4 on 15.05.2023.

On 18.06.2024 the O.Ps were directed to file the CC TV footage of the ATM counter. The O.Ps submitted that as the alleged transactions are of the year 2021 the video footage are not available with the O.Ps.

After going through the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties following issues are framed:

ISSUES

1. Whether the ATM Cards issued on 01.03.2021, 17.03.2021 and 16.02.2022 to the Complainant by the O.Ps are per norms of the Bank?
2. Whether the transactions dated 30.04.2021,18.05.2021, 23.06.2021 and 09.07.2021 are made by the Complainant and due alerts have been sent by the O.Ps?
3. Are the O.Ps deficient in their service ?
4. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Whether the ATM Cards issued on 01.03.2021, 17.03.202 and 16.02.2022 to the Complainant by the O.Ps are per norms of the Bank?

The O.P.No.4 submitted that on 01.03.2021, 17.03.2021 and 16.02.2022 three ATM Cards have been issued in the name of Complainant. The Complainant submitted that on 17.03.2021 ATM Card bearing No. 5085460044125881 has been issued to the Complainant and on the same day it was activated and Rs. 500/- was withdrawn. From the account statement it reveals that Rs. 500/- was withdrawn on 17.03.2021. The issuance of ATM Card on 17.03.2021 is also admitted by the O.Ps. the alleged fraudulent transaction are from the period 30.04.2021 to 09.07.202. Prior to that period on 01.03.2021 one ATM Card has been issues by the O.Ps. Later on 16.02.2022 the O.Ps have issued another ATM Card. Under which circumstances three ATM Cards were issued to the Complainant, the O.Ps not explained. It is the general practice that when one card is either lost/damaged, for issuance of second ATM Card it is the duty of O.Ps to enquire into the matter and after keeping necessary security documents second card is issued. In case of loss/damage the O.Ps insists for F.I.R. and an affidavit prior17.03.2021 when the first card was issued, it is within the knowledge of the O.Ps. The O.Ps while issuing second ATM Card without enquiry issued the ATM Card was issued, when the Complainant issued letter dated 15.05.2023 the O.Ps NO.4 in reply submitted that three number of ATM Card has been received by the Complainant.

From this very fact it is crystal clear that without observing security formalities the O.Ps are issuing number of ATM cards to a person in a particular account. The O.Ps failed to establish that three number of ATM Cards have been issued to the Complainant under which circumstances and event not filed the security documents obtained from the Complainant.

The O.Ps have submitted the specimen signature of the Complainant and it differs from the signature dated 01.03.2021 and 16.02.2022 in bare eyes. The O.Ps failed to prove the proper security measures taken for issuance of three ATM Cards to a single person in an account. The issue is answered against the O.Ps.

Issue No.2:- Whether the transactions dated 30.04.2021,18.05.2021, 23.06.2021 and 09.07.2021 are made by the Complainant and due alerts have been set by the O.Ps?

The Complainant alleged the transactions dated 30.04.2021, 18.05.2021, 23.06.2021 and 09.07.2021 as fraudulent and stated that no any alert message has been delivered to registered mobile No. 94371-27229. In the other hand the O.Ps submitted that alert messages have been delivered successfully to the registered mobile number.

From reply letter of the O.P. dated 15.05.2023 it reveals that Card Number 5085460044125311, Card No. 5085460011425881 and the Complainant and two cards are not traceable which are issued to the Complainant. All the transactions from 30.04.2021 to 09.07.2021 have been made through ATM Card No. 5085460044125881, which is admitted by the Complainant. After issuance of ATM Card dated 17.03.2021 all the transactions are made amounting to Rs. 84,000/- from 30.04.201 to 09.07.2021. The allegation of the Complainant is that either by way of cloning or by way of using other two cards retained by the Bank fraudulently amount of Rs. 84,000/- have been withdrawn. The Complainant duly came to know about the transactions on 12.05.2023 while had been to O.P.No.4. Thereafter Complaints have been made to others O.Ps.

From the account statement it reveals that on 02.03.2021 twice Rs. 100/- has been withdrawn from the said account while ATM Card No. xxx5881 was issued on ATM Card the said two transactions have been made. Likewise on 17.02.2022 Rs. 500/- has been withdrawn from the said account and on 16.02.2022 another ATM Card has been issued. It implies that a number of ATM Cards have been used in the account and different amount have been withdrawn.

There is every possibility of cloning of the ATM Card and allegation of the Complainant can not be discarded. Likewise use of other unidentified two ATM Cards also cannot be discarded. Non-delivery of the messages alert is a Common feature and the documents filed by the O.Ps do not prove that the messages are delivered to the Complainant. The O.Ps could not produce the CCTV footages and submitted a reply that the footages are not available for the long gap.

As it reveals the transactions dated 30.04.2021, 18.05.2021, 23.06.2021 and 09.07.2021 are made by the Complainant by using the ATM Card No. xxx5881 but the other transactions dated 02.03.2021 and 17.02.2022 proves that fraudulent withdrawal has been made by other ATM Cards.

The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3:- Are the O.Ps deficient in their service ?

From the supra discussion it is clear that there is mis-issuance of ATM Cards have been made by the O.P.No.4 without observing the security norms for which fraudulent transactions have been made from the Saving Bank Account of the Complainant. The hard-earned money of a customer is not ensure for the security lapses of the O.Ps. Accordingly, the O.Ps are deficient in service. The issue is answered in favour of the Complainant.

Issue No.4:-          What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

The Complainant is entitled for the relief claimed, for the deficiency in service of the O.Ps are accordingly it is ordered:

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency in service. The payment should be made within one month of this order failing which the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. from date of filing till realization.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10^th day of Dec, 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.