Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/400/2014

Sukhwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Maharashtra - Opp.Party(s)

Rajbir Sngh Randhawa, Adv.

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	400 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	06.08.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	09.07.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh, R/o H.No.424, Phase-XI, Mohali, Punjab.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Bank of Maharashtra, through its Chief Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, C.L. Lokmangal, 1501 Shivajinagar, Pune 411005

 

2]  Zonal Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Zonal Office, Chandigarh SCO No.88-89, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017.

 

3]  Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, SCO No.121-122, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh 160047

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Sh.R.S.Randhawa, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Munish Yadav, Counsel for Opposite Party

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant had opened a savings account No.68004636876 in Opposite Party No.3 Bank in April, 2011.  It is averred that the complainant never applied for ATM Card from the said Bank nor any ATM Card was received by him and neither pin or code for operating ATM Card was received by her.  However, on 24.10.2013, the complainant shocked to know that Rs.23,000/- has been withdrawn from her account through four different ATM transactions. Ultimately, the matter was reported to Opposite Party No.3 (Ann.C-2), whereupon it was told that ATM Card was issued to her and she was shown signature on receiving receipt of ATM Card.  It is also averred that the complainant was shocked to see the signature on the receipt of ATM Card, which was totally different from her signature.  It is pleaded that the complainant also moved a complaint to SSP, Chandigarh regarding fraudulent withdrawn of Rs.23,000/- from her account (Ann.C-5).  It is also pleaded that when she visited the Opposite Party No.3 Bank along with her friend to visit Canara Bank Branch, Kurali and HDFC Bank Branch at Kurali, to check the CCTV recording, the official did not allow her friend to accompany her to the said place.  It is further pleaded that in the whole episode the behavior of the official of Opposite Party No.3 Bank was very rude and uncooperative.  A legal notice was also sent to the OPs but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

 

2]       The OPs No.1 to 3 have filed joint reply and admitted that the complainant is having savings account with Opposite Party No.3 Bank Branch.  It is stated that the said account of the complainant was opened under special series of account namely INSTA Mahabank Account, as per which, complete packet containing ATM cum Debit Card cum Password were provided to all the customers at the time of opening of new account. The withdrawn of amount, as alleged, from the account of the complainant through ATM Transactions to the tune of Rs.23000/- have been admitted. It is also admitted that the complainant gave written complaint on 25.10.2013 about the said transactions being illegal.  It is submitted that there was SMS Alerts facilities activated on the complainant’s mobile No.9779577913 and the loss of the said mobile is a concocted story of the complainant to perplex the Forum.  It is pleaded that neither any employee of OPs nor any connected person is involved in the withdrawing the amount.  It is denied that Opposite Party No.3 had not issued the ATM Card cum Pin Code to the complainant.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant, who is a bona-fide account holder of Opposite Party No.3, since the year 2011, when she had opened her savings bank account with it and has been regularly maintaining the same since then.  The complainant claims to be a School Teacher and has disclosed that her salary is being credited in her account maintained with Opposite Party No.3. That during the month of Oct., 2013, the complainant came across few debit entries, which according to her were not in her knowledge and that it also showed that an ATM Card was being used for such withdrawals from her account, whereas she had neither been issued any ATM Card by the bank initially nor she had requested for such a card at any stage of time. The complainant lodged a complaint with Opposite Parties who in turn asked her to verify the details of the transactions which were conducted at some other place namely Kurali and Janta Nagar. The complainant claims that the officials of Opposite Parties in order to verify the manner of transactions, asked her to accompany them to which she refused feeling uncomfortable in the company of unknown persons for the purpose of travelling outside the city.  The complainant had also disclosed that on not hearing anything favourable from the Opposite Parties, a complaint was also moved with the SSP, Chandigarh, bringing to their notice the unauthorized withdrawal of money from her account.  The complainant in her complaint with the police authorities had also mentioned that at no point of time, she had applied for the ATM Card through which the Opposite Parties have claimed the withdrawal of amount from her account was made.  There is no result or outcome of the investigation made by the police till date and the complainant has preferred the present complaint seeking the relief mentioned in her prayer clause.

 

6]       The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the complainant have claimed that a Mahabank Debit Card was got issued by her and the same card was used for the withdrawal of the amount she was disputing.  The Opposite Parties have also claimed that at the request of the complainant, her debit/ATM card was blocked on receipt of request from her side and that the transactions had taken place at a far off location. They had even volunteered to accompany her so as to know from the record of that Branch about the identity of the person, who had operated the ATM machine while making such withdrawals.  The Opposite Parties claimed that the complainant refused to visit the said Branch and that they could not do much as the matter did not pertain to their branch and no information was forthcoming.  The Opposite Parties even refuted the allegations with regard to non-issuance of Debit/ATM Card claiming that the said card was issued in the name of the complainant in a sealed cover and the complainant alone could operate the same on the basis of the secret code which too was provided along with it.  Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on their part, have prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua them. 

 

7]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the considered opinion that the complainant, who had opened her savings bank account with the Opposite Parties in the year 2011 was regularly maintaining the same till date and that even her salary too was found to be deposited in the same account of the Opposite Parties. The four unauthorized withdrawals amounting to Rs.23,000/- under dispute were made on 18.10.2013 and 22.10.2013.  The complainant coming to know of such transactions promptly informed the Opposite Parties through her  letter dated 25.10.2013 along with an e-mail which was duly replied back by the Opposite Parties through their e-mail dated 26.10.2013 (Ann.C-4), promising an early redressal of her complaint.  The complainant in her communication to the Opposite Parties had categorically mentioned that at no point of time, the ATM/Debit Card in question was got issued by her and even the bank records confirm that she had not signed the receipt of any such card.  Annexure C-10 placed on record by the complainant also discloses that the complainant was asked to accompany the bank officials for a visit to Canara Bank, Kurali Branch to check the CCTV footage, so as to identify the person, who had operated the ATM machine, while making the questionable withdrawals from the complainant’s account.  The complainant had objected to the manner and behavior of the Bank Officials, who had proposed the visit to Kurali.          

 

8]       The complainant had specifically mentioned in her pleadings that no ATM/Debit Card was ever got issued by her and also that the card issued in her name by the Opposite Parties was not received by her as the register containing such details did not bear her signatures.   Though the Opposite Parties have claimed that it was the complainant alone who had received the packet containing ATM Card and other documents including PIN Code, but did not place on record any document in support of their reply/version. 

 

9]       The complainant in order to prove her point has placed on record, a copy of register containing such details and also the copy of account opening form as Ann.A-1, which she had procured from the Office of Opposite Parties through RTI Application. Ann.A-1 clearly indicates that an ATM Card bearing NO.4214xxxxxxxx9948 is found issued against the account number of the complainant, but at the same time the signatures found appended do not match the signatures of the complainant in her complaint as well as the signatures as appended on the supporting affidavit dated 6.8.2014, which is duly attested by a Notary Public.

 

10]     There is another important aspect to this document i.e. there are only few entries against which the date of issuance of issuance of ATM Card mentioned, whereas in case of the complainant the date of issuance of ATM/Debit Card, is found to be absent.  Meaning thereby, the claim of the complainant that she had not requested the Opposite Parties about the issuance of ATM Card holds ground, as there is no written request from her side, as is mandatory under RBI guidelines (Ann.C-9),      placed on record by the complainant, the same being unsolicited and the absence of her signatures on the issuance register, also fortified her claim.  The Opposite Parties have not rebutted these claims of the complainant by placing on record any cogent reliable and trustworthy evidence from their records, therefore, the bald averments of their reply/versions are out rightly rejected being devoid of any merit.

 

11]      Though the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have preferred a joint reply, but they have not placed on record any affidavit of the person or bank official, who was maintaining the records of ATM/Debit cards and who had issued the same to the complainant.

12]      Therefore, the Opposite Parties are certainly found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant by not maintaining proper record of issuance of ATM/Debit Card, resulting into an unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.23,000/- from the account of the complainant.

 

13]      It is also evident from the contents of the complaint that the complainant had informed the policy authorities through SSP, Chandigarh about her loss and as there is no final outcome of such investigations, we feel that the complainant cannot be made to suffer in definitely for her loss, therefore, she is certainly entitled to a fair amount of interest that she would have otherwise earned on her monies. 

 

14]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs. The Opposite parties are directed jointly & severally as under:-

 

[a] To pay interest @6% per annum on Rs.23,000/.- since 22.10.2013 till the same is reversed in her account after the investigations.

 

 [b] To pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

 [c] To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount Rs.15000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

9^th July, 2015              

                                                                            

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

 

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.400 OF 2013

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 9th day of July, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member