Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved over dismissal of his complaint case, this Appeal is moved by Fazle Rasul, the Complainant.

In short, case of the Complainant, as narrated in the petition of complaint, is that, thanks to laches on the part of the OP, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was withdrawn from his account behind his back.  As the OP did not take any positive step to credit the amount to his account, he filed the complaint case.

On the other hand, case of the OP is that, initially an ATM Card was issued to the Complainant.  Subsequently, as per his request, another ATM Card was issued and the same as well as PIN was sent to the registered address of the Complainant separately.  Therefore, if any unauthorized transaction took place on account of the  laches of the Complainant, the Bank cannot be held responsible for the same.

Decision with reasons

We have heard the parties and gone through the records.

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that at first, the Appellant was allotted an ATM Card bearing no. 4688052530039041.  The said card was blocked/hot listed through mobile no. 90628-84407 (although he disowned the said mobile number) on 31-08-2012 and a second ATM Card bearing no. 4179170018530418 was issued to him on 28-12-2012.  After using the second ATM Card for a considerable period of time, the Complainant terminated/cancelled the same on 16-03-2013 through his Mobile no. 90628-84407 and a third card was issued to him on 16-04-2013 bearing no. 4902239010722549 and all the disputed transactions were made through the third card.  He also submitted that the new ATM Card and PIN were sent to the registered address of the Complainant through two different courier companies on different dates and using the newly issued ATM Cards, the Appellant withdrew money from his account on several occasions for a considerable period of time without raising any issue.  He also clarified that in order to get service through IVR process, any customer of this Bank must fulfill a set of criteria confirming his/her unique Customer ID along with the tele-banking password.  Both these information are secured and confidential and known only to the customer.  Therefore, if the customer passes on/discloses the said information to someone else, the buck stops at his doorstep. 

On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that mobile no. 90628-84407 does not belong to him and he never asked for blocking his debit card or issuance of new card.  He blamed the procedural lapses on the part of the Respondent and prayed for due relief.

On careful consideration of the submission of the parties and materials on record, we come across some crucial aspects of this case to which we got no satisfactory explanation from the side of the Appellant.  They are –

If indeed mobile no. 90628-84407 does not belong to him, how it was used for blocking the first ATM Card.  Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the said mobile no. does not belong to the Appellant or he never approached the Respondent Bank for issuance of new card, it is quite baffling, when he received the second debit card, why he did not take up the matter with the Respondent Bank.  It is noteworthy here that using the second debit card, the Appellant made transactions during the period 28-12-2012 and 15-03-2013. 

We also find it quite baffling that the unidentified miscreant got hold of the secret unique Customer ID and tele-banking password those were necessary to activate IVR process.  Since this secret information were known to the Appellant only, it was virtually impossible for any unknown person to get hold of the same unless of course any breach took place from the side of the Appellant.

Undisputedly, the disputed ATM Card and PIN no. were sent to the registered address of the Appellant through different courier companies to safeguard the interests of the Appellant.  Therefore, the probability of sabotage from the close associates of the Appellant also cannot be ruled out.

In any case, simply on the basis of averment of the Appellant, the veracity of his allegation cannot be ascertained for which a thorough investigation is required which is not possible in this summary trial. 

The Appellant, therefore, cannot be granted any relief at this juncture.  He may wish to approach the appropriate Court for due relief in this matter.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.