Date of filing :- 25/08/2014.
Date of Order :-24/11/2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 20 of 2014
Madhu Sharma, aged about 36(thirty six) years, Wife of Mukesh Sharma, Resident of Ward No.05, Saharapada, Bargarh. Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-V e r s u s -
Branch Manager, Axis Bank, At- Chhanda Market Complex, N.H.6, Bargarh, Ps/Po/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri J. Pradhan, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri D. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Member (w), I/C President.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 24/11/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member(w), I/C President .
Fact of the case :-
Complainant is an account holder of the Opposite Party bank and her account activities via handed by her husband. Complainant's husband lost the Debit Card along with pin no at Bargarh on Dt.12/01/2012 at about 3 to 5 PM. Husband of the Complainant complained the matter to card lost deptt. to phone no. 02267987700 through his mobile phone which was responded via some lady and stated that the debit card 91101067945557 has been blocked. Complainant's husband went to this Opposite Party office on Dt.14/01/2012 and inquired about the balance and found that an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only has been withdrawn. On Dt.16/01/2012 Complainants filed her written grievance before the Opposite Party and requested refunds of her money. Opposite Party replied that card was blocked only on 14/01/2012 at 21.33 hours and money was withdrawn on 12/01/2012. Complainant further filed her written grievance on 18/08/2013, 17/01/2014 and 20/08/2014 to redress her grievances. Since Complainant's grievance not answered by the Opposite Party hence this case and complainant alleges that non blocking of debit card is deficiency on the part of Opposite Party and she needs to be suitably compensated for losses incurred for actions/non-action of the Opposite Parties and claims refund of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only as compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only as litigation expenses.
Complainant files the following documents and relies on there to substantiate their cause.
Letter to Opposite Party Dt.16/01/2012.
Letter to Opposite Party Dt.18/08/2013.
Letter to Opposite Party Dt.17/01/2014.
Letter to Opposite Party Dt.20/08/2014
(Which also has got marks of registration receipt for sent letter.)
Complainant being admitted by the Forum for adjudication notices were issued to the Opposite Party and Opposite Party appeared and filed their version on 23/12/2014 denying the charges levelled against them and deficiency of service occurred.
Opposite Party files citations as following to substantiate their contentions so as to limitation clause.
2014 STPL (CL) 3828 NC.
2014 STPL (CL) 3470 NC.
2014 STPL (CL) 4811 NC.
2014 STPL (CL) 4098 NC.
Complainant on relation to the limitation challenge files the following citations to raise their contentions on the matter.
2013 CPJ 658 NC.
1997 (II) CPJ (300)
A preliminary hearing on the issue of limitation was done and order passed on the matter on Dt. 20/06/2015 and in favour of the Complainant and matter posted for final hearing.
Opposite Party files the following documents on Dt.15/07/2015 to substantiate their cause.
Xerox copy key log to usage of the Debit Card.
Xerox copy of terms and conditions of Debit Card.
Statement of account.
Xerox copy of Debit Card management system.
Complainant further filed the following documents to substantiate this cause on Dt. 08/09/2015.
Letter from Opposite Party Dt.30/01/2012 to the Complainant.
Heard the matter on Dt.08/09/2015 in the presence of both the parties where they instantiated their cause in great detail referring the documents filed by them. After hearing the submission of both the parties in issue, referring the documents filed by them and the petitions attached to the case record forum considers the following grounds to arrive on the decision.
It is admitted that, the cause of action is 12/01/2012 when the card was lost and it was lost by husband of the Complainant.
Complainant herself admitted that she allowed her husband to use the card including giving him the pin no attached to the debit card. Though it is always envisaged by the banking organizations to handle accounts by the account holder himself/herself only from his/her our interest and safety. Opposite Party alleged that Complainant failed to follow this conditions on her part. But it is also understood that on case of Indian families this kind of situations are common where husband handles the account of the wife and sometime vice versa.
The ATM log is not filed by any party to prove the withdrawal timing at Bargarh only account statement is filed which is insufficient to know the time of withdrawal in the date 12/01/2012.
The card was lost on Dt.12/01/2012 at Bargarh Complainant's letter Dt.16/01/2012 to the Opposite Party speaks that husband of the Complainant stays out of town but handles her card. It was no where pointed act that on that day 12/01/2012 whether husband of the Complainant was at Bargarh and lost the card if not so when he is out side of the town how he can lose the card at Bargarh. If he was at Bargarh why he immediately did not rushed to the Branch of the Opposite Party same day and goes for inquiry on Dt.14/01/2014 only and if this happened because he stays out of town then he can not lost the card at Bargarh under any circumstances so it seems that the contentions of the Complainant herself is contradictory.
The Debit Card and pin was said to be lost on Dt.12/01/2012 by the husband of the Opposite Party at Bargarh and if so why he did not visited the branch at Bargarh to block the card in issue is not clear and if he called the bank day and card was blocked the practice is immediately a card is blocked a text massage is sent to the registered mobile no which could have been preserved. Besides as this is a serious matter relating to money. Complainant husband should have immediately visited the local branch to ensure the blocking of the card in issue which is missing for what is not known.
The document statement of account filed by the Opposite Party for the account in issue that is 91101067945557 shows that opening balance of the day was zero. An amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only was deposited by cash the same day that is 12/01/2012, under the circumstances it is well understood that to deposit money by cash can only be done in the branch of the Opposite Parties and as per the statement of the Complainant her husband is the one who has to do it the same day, the money was withdrawn under the circumstances why he did not withdraw the money at the branch ATM counter raises doubts. If some else has done this cash deposit then the husband of the Complainant should be out of town and he can not lose the card and pin at Bargarh.
No one was offered to depose in the matter nor any party demanded any deposition in the issue.
On the said inquiring visit of the husband of the Complainant to the Branch of the Opposite Party the card got blocked and a ticket was opened following the procedure.
OP also advised the Complainant to file an FIR about the alleged fraud if any which was not done.
Under the facts and circumstance discussed as above Forum arrives on the decision that the Complaint devoid if any merit.
- O R D E R -
Forum orders that the Complainant is devoid of any merit and hence stands dismissed.
No costs.
Disposed accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Smt. Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r(w),
I/C President.
I agree,
( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash )
M e m b e r.
