1. Fazle Rasul,

46E, Shamsul Huda Road,

P.S. Karaya, Kolkata-17._________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. Axis Bank Ltd.

Rashbehari Branch,

Represented by its Manager,

41/B, Rashbehari Avenue,

Kolkata-26, P.S. Tollygunge.________ Opposite Party

Present :          Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   17    Dated  29/07/2016

       The case of the complainant in short is that complainants is the saving bank holder with o.p. being account no.2530101001273332 and he has one debit card bearing no.4179 1700 1853 0418. Complainant took the option of mobile banking system and for that purpose he provided his mobile number to o.p. being no. 9831307017. On 16.4.13 when complainant went to bank to update his pass book and also to deposit some cash complainant detected that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- had been debited from his account. It was also reflected from the pass book that on and from 23.3.13 to 27.3.13 an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- had been withdrawn from different ATM counters on different dates. On enquiry from o.p., complainant came to know that the amount was withdrawn from the ATM counters through debit card bearing no.4902239010722549 which was not the debit card of complainant which was mentioned earlier. on enquiry complainant came to know that the number 4902239010722549 issued by o.p. in favour of complainant was on alleged request by complainant and o.p. blocked his previous debit card being no.4179170018530418. Complainant objected that he never requested for issuance of new debit card. Complainant tried his level best to inform the o.p. that complainant never asked for issuance of new card and blocking of old card, but o.p. did not pay any heed. Therefore complainant lodged a police complaint for the same. On 7.5.13 complainant sent an advocate’s letter to the bank regarding their irregularity and further requested the o.p. to credit the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. In reply dt.1.6.13 o.p. produced a printed form in regard to their explanation showing that at the request of complainant the 2^nd card was issued. It appeared from the said printed sheet that the call received from the mobile number is 9062884407 which was different from the number given by complainant to o.p. O.p. also produced a tabulation sheet issued by courier company showing the signature appeared in the said tabulation sheet who accepted the envelop from the bank through courier company. Complainant sent a letter on 30.9.13 denying and disputing the contention, statement made in the letter dt.1.6.13 issued by o.p. Complainant also stated in his petition that against the letter dt.30.9.13 the bank authority by a letter bearing no.Axis/RBA/2013-2014/62 dt.15.10.13 acknowledged the letter dt.30.9.13 and further assured that they were examining the matter and would reply within 15 days. But in spite of the assurance given by o.p. nothing has been done from their end. Hence the application praying for direction upon o.p. to credit the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with compensation and cost.

            O.p. appeared before this Forum by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia stated that complainant has done few disputed transactions at the ATM of Axis Bank Ltd., State Bank of India, Karur Baisya Bank, all located at various locations in Kolkata and it is therefore necessary to include th em as a party for proper adjudication of the present matter. However, complainant had intentionally failed to implead them as a party. After being allotted the ATM card to complainant during the time of opening the account in 2008, complainant had made a call through IVR process from a different number and requested for a new ATM-cum-Debit card and Pin number after blocking the initial ATM-cum-Debit card in the month of Aug. 2012, that was allotted to him. It is stated in the w/v that the mobile banking facility, which was activated through the number 9831307017, was also deactivated through IVR process. The request was accepted and new ATM-cum-Debit card and Pin number were sent to the registered address of complainant on two separate dates through separate courier companies. The registered posts were duly received at the residence of complainant and through his new ATM-cum-Debit card complainant had withdrawn funds from his account. As per information received from ATM cell complainant had used the new ATM-cum-Debit card and had withdrawn cash from various ATM outlets amount to Rs.1,56,000/-. Total 13 nos. ATM transactions were effected between 23.3.13 tp 27.3.13. Surprisingly complainant mentioned that the withdrawn amount was Rs.1,50,000/-. It was also stated as Rs.1,50,000/- in the police complaint. The E.J. report of all transactions has been annexed with w/v. O.p. also stated that Pins had four digits, which means there are 6561 possible combination for the Pin of any card which makes it verbally impossible for a fraudulent activity. In addition if wrong Pin is entered thrice then the card is not usable by the customer at the ATM for the next 24 hours or till the end of day cutover of the ATM which is normally at 9-00 p.m. Without knowing the unique Pin number there is no way that any fraudster could have used complainant’s card at any ATM for cash withdrawal. Even if it is assumed that complainant had not used the said debit card then somebody having original debit card and confidential Pin number might have used the same. It is quite possible that either the family member or someone with close relationship with the account holder might have been given access to the original debit card and confidential Pin number which only known to the account holder. So, there is no cause of action to file the case against o.p. and as such, the case is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant is account holder of o.p. bank and it appears that complainant was provided an ATM card by o.p. The account number of complainant is 253010100127332. Initially the 1^st ATM-cum-Debit card was allotted being no.4688052530039041. It appears from the record that the complainant was issued a fresh ATM-cum-Debit card bearing no.4179170018530418 on 28.12.12 at the request of complainant. In the petition of complaint, complaiannt has stated that the particular of mobile number does not belong to him, but the 1^st ATM-cum-Debit card bearing no. 4688052530039041 was blocked / hot listed from the mobile number 9062884407 on 31.8.12. Complainant used his 2^nd ATM-cum-Debit card for considerable period of time without facing any issue. On 16.4.13 complainant was provided a fresh ATM-cum-Debit card based on the request through phone banking and all the alleged transactions were made through his 3^rd ATM-cum-Debit card being no.4902239010722549. O.p. has annexed the list of ATM-cum-Debit card allotted to complainant. All the changes for blocking the previous ATM-cum-Debit card and issuance of new card was done through IVR process. The E.J. report of all transactions filed by o.p. is a authentic documents. It cannot be manipulated by any person in any way whatsoever. Moreovedr, we are relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission in State Bank of India vs. K.K. Bhalla dt.7.4.13 where Hon’ble Commission has held that in case the ATM card had been stolen or the Pin number had become known to persons other than ATM card holder then the CCTV coverage could have helped in identifying the persons who had fraudulently used the card. In the instant case it is not disputed that the ATM card or Pin remained in the self-custody / knowledge of the respondent. In view of elaborate procedure evolved by petitioner / bank to ensure that without the ATM card and knowledge of the Pin number, it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorized person from and ATM. The circumstances of cases where fraudulent withdrawals have happened may not be same as in this case and in all probability, these fraudulent withdrawals occurred either because the ATM card or the Pin number fell in wrong hands.

            Moreover, complainant has alleged in his petition that new card and Pin number have been received by any one not by himself because the signatures on the envelops sent by courier were not his signatures.  But complainant never prayed for signature verification before this Forum. So, this plea cannot be taken for consideration.

            In view of the above, we find that complainant has not substantiated his case and as such, he is not entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.    

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.