Haryana

StateCommission

A/1059/2015

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.V.VENKATA JAGDISH RAJU - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.BADHRAN

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1059 of 2015

Date of Institution: 10.12.2015                                                              Date of Decision: 08.06.2016

 

State Bank of India, Kunjpura District Karnal through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellant

 

Versus

 

B.V.Ventata Jagdish Raju AGM Accounts and Finance O/O Soma Enterprises Ltd. Salaru Village Indri Road Tehsil & District Karnal.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for appellant.

                             Ms.Simranpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                             It was alleged by the complainant that he was customer of OP and was having account No.10250871580 with it’s Porbandar, Branch. Lateron, he got that account transferred to it’s Kunjpura branch on 14.10.2008. During the process  of transfer  of account he deposited debit card, pass book and remaining cheques at Porbandar branch, but, the aforesaid debit card was lost by that branch. In order to stop operation of lost ATM card and to issue new ATM Card, he moved an application before it’s branch at Kunjpura. In pursuance of that application an other ATM with new number was issued. It was assured by Manager of the OP that operation of lost ATM Card was stopped. In the month of November, 2011, he noticed that balance in his account was less than expected.  On 28.11.2011 when he checked the statement of account it was found that Rs.60,700/- were withdrawn by some unknown person in between 09.05.2009 to 18.10.2011 thorough previous ATM Card. He immediately informed Manager of OP and also chairman of State Bank of India to look into the matter. The aforesaid amount was lost due to negligence on the part of OP so it be directed to pay the same besides Rs.11000/- on account of litigation expenses and Rs.10,000/-  for mental agony, harassment etc.     

3.      Opposite party filed reply converting his averments  and alleged that alleged transaction took place through ATM machine at Porbandar, so the said branch was necessary party and District Forum, Porbander was having territorial jurisdiction to look into the matter. It was never asked to stop operation of previous ATM. When pass book etc. were deposited at Porbandar branch then there was no question of asking this branch to stop transactions through that ATM. The complainant has concocted false and frivolous story.  The complaint has no merit and the same be dismissed.

4.      After hearing both the parties, Learned District Forum, Karnal allowed the complaint vide order dated 14.10.2015 and directed the appellant-opposite party as under:-

“to make the payment of Rs.60,700/- to the complainant alongwith interest at savings bank accounts rate, from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 01.05.2012 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for litigation expenses”.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant/opposite party filed appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for appellant/opposite party vehemently argued that District Forum, Karnal was not having territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter because ATM card was   operated at Porbandar, Branch. As per his averment, pass book etc. were also deposited at that branch. Complainant has not mentioned the specific date on which the amount was withdrawn. Even otherwise, amount has been withdrawn from ATM Card which shows that the person concerned was aware about the Pin Number and it cannot be said that any fault was with the bank. An unknown person cannot withdraw the amount so no liability can be fastened upon the bank. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on case laws titled as State Bank of India Vs. K.K.Bhalla II (2011) CPJ 106 (NC) and Rajnikant Upadhyay Vs. ICICI Bank Limited & Anr. II (2012) CPJ 211.

8.                This argument is devoid of any force. The bank has not denied transaction in it’s reply.  The main thrust of the OP is that the transaction took place at Porbandar and the complaint should have been filed at that place.  When transaction took place, complainant was having his account with SBI Kunjpura branch, Distt. Karnal. His account at Porbandar was also with State Bank of India.  So, it cannot be alleged that he cannot file complaint against State Bank of India where account was transferred by Porbandar Branch. It was admitted during the course of arguments that when new card is issued, operation of the previous card is stopped, but, this procedure is not followed by the bank in this case. When previous card was in operation why new card was issued is not explained.  As per procedure of the bank regarding issuance of new card, previous card was deposited with SBI, Porbandar Branch.  When he got his account transferred and new card was issued it was responsibility of the bank to stop operation of previous ATM card. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellant has failed to show that account number at Porbandar Branch and account number at Kunjpura Branch are different. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent/complainant alleged that account number is same. When there is one account  number how bank has allowed  the operation of two cards, whereas against one account only one card is permitted. It shows that the previous card was in the custody of the bank and it was having access to pin number of previous card. The appellant cannot derive any benefit from cited case laws because they are based on altogether different facts. In those cases question of depositing ATM card and shifting of account was not involved. Learned District Forum has taken into consideration each and every aspect from every angle. The impugned is well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.     Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

9.                The opposite party-appellant is directed to fix the responsibility of the concerned official, who was responsible for lapse. The loss suffered by bank be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K.Gupta (Supra) as under:-

“When the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund ‘immediately’ but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”

 

10.  The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision if any.

 

June 8th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.