Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/55/2019

Santosh Ale - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Laloo Kumar

05 Dec 2022

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-12-03-2019

Date of final hearing-05-12-2022

 Date of Order-05-12-2022

Case No. 55/2019

Santosh Ale S/o Late Ram Prasad Alae R/o Paschimpalli, Chandrapura, Bokaro

Vs.

Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

 Chandrapura Branch Bokaro

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

        Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

          Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct O.P. to pay Rs. 44,000/- (related to ATM withdrawal) and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he is maintaining savings bank account No. 20435309209 at SBI Chandrapura Branch, Bokaro with ATM facility. Further case is that on 11.01.2019 complainant tried to withdraw Rs. 20,000/- but massage was shown “your limit cross” again he tried to withdraw it but same massage was shown. Further case is that when he received mini statement and contacted customer care then it was detected that someone has withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- on 11.01.2019, Rs. 20,000/- on 12.01.2019 and Rs. 4000/- on 13.01.2019 about which it is assured by the customer care to be returned within 7 days but it was not returned hence this case has been filed.
3. As per W.S. of the O.P. Bank alleged withdrawal is admitted fact but it is apparent that said withdrawal has been made by the debit card holder because it is necessary to use debit card and thereafter, insert PIN or OTP which are having secret number and known to the card holder only, hence there is no deficiency in service and case is liable to be dismissed.
4.  Now point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed ?
5. Complainant has been examined as witness No. 1 and he admits at para 12 of cross examination that on 11.01.2019, 12.01.2019 and 13.01.2019 he himself has used said ATM Card. At para 17 and 18 of the cross-examination he states that he is not aware about progress or number of the case which was lodged in Cyber P.S. It is important to note here that ATM Card of the complainant was remained with him and only the complainant was aware about it’s PIN which is secret number hence without use of said secret number such transactions are not possible. Therefore, it is apparent that complainant has not proved its case.
6. In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove his case for grant of relief as prayed, rather it may be a case of cyber fraud for which this Commission is having no jurisdiction to take action in criminal side.
7. Accordingly this case is dismissed on merit on contest.

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

                                                                                               

    (B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

•