Smt. Syeda Shahnur Ali, Member

This complaint case is filed by one Sri Sahadeb Sau against Branch Managers of IDBI and UBI banks, praying for a direction upon the OPs to return Rs. 10,000/- along with interest, and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and an equivalent sum towards litigation cost.

Case of the Complainant, as stated in the petition of complaint, in brief, is that, on 23-12-2014, at 09-30 a.m., with a view to withdraw a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from his savings account no. 0761104000035945 with OP No. 1, he went to the Haribazar ATM centre of OP No. 2.  After withdrawing the requisite money, he left ATM as usual.  Few days later, when he updated his pass book, to his utter surprise, he found that an excess amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deducted from his account.  So, he lodged a written complaint with the OP No. 1 on 13-01-2015; he also lodged a GD with local police station on 19-01-2015 being GDE No. 1045.  Besides, he informed the matter to the Asstt. Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Govt. of West Bengal, Purba Medinipur R.O.  However, no fruitful result emerged out of that tripartite meeting.  It is alleged that, despite repeated attempts of the concerned office to bring OP No. 2 on board, it remained conspicuous by its absence. As his written complaint and repeated follow ups from pillar to post did not yield any positive outcome, finding no other alternative, Complainant filed this case. 

OPS contested the case by filing WV. OP No1. It denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  Besides, it is stated by this OP that on receipt of a complaint from the Complainant over unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from his savings account, it immediately swung into action and asked the OP No. 2 to set in motion a decent probe.  The latter though provided some snapshots of the CCTV footage, but the same were totally blank.  These OPS squarely blamed the Complainant for not adhering to bank’s security guidelines related to usage of ATM Debit Card and denied any lapses/deficiency in service on its part.  Accordingly, this OP prayed for dismissal of this case.

OP No. 2 also contested the case.  By filing WV, it is contended by this OP that after receiving complaint from the Complainant, it verified the ATM machine at Haribazar, Tamluk and found that at the relevant point of time, two successful transactions of Rs. 10,000/- each took place.  It is further stated that since both the transactions took place within a fraction of a second, apparently the same took place in presence of the Complainant.  Like OP No. 1, this OP too blamed the Complainant for sharing of the secret PIN Code with the security guard of the ATM Centre, thereby jeopardizing the security of the ATM card.It is asserted by this OP that liability of any unauthorized ATM transaction lies only with the customer and a bank cannot be blamed for the same. Thus, this OP prayed for dismissal of this case.

Point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for by him.

Decision with reasons

The present case revolves over a dispute regarding alleged unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from the savings account of the Complainant on 23-12-2014. From the photocopy of complaint letter dated 13-01-2015 of the Complainant to his banker, it transpires that he allegedly handed over his ATM Card to the security guard of the ATM centre to help him withdraw the desired amount from his account.

Taking a grim view of it, both the OPs passed the buck upon the Complainant for his alleged misfortune.  No doubt, in our own interest, we need to religiously adhere to the various guidelines set forth by the banks pertaining to usage of ATM Card, one of which is to keep PIN code under the wraps all the time. 

Having said that, if we take an empirical view of the matter, we would find that, everyone is not tech savvy. Since banks do not impart any practical training to its customers about how to use an ATM Card prior to issuance of same, first time users of ATM cards tend to be at the beck and call of others to learn the nuances of its usage. That apart,there are aged/physically challenged/illiterate/semi-literate people, who take some times to acclimatize themselves with the nitty-gritty of its usage. Quite obviously, in case such people do not find any dependent person back home, they approach the security guards deployed by banks at the ATM centers with unsuspected mind for assistance.

In such a scenario, keeping in mind the vulnerability of this segment of people, it is of paramount importance that banks carry out stringent background check of security personnel before pressing them into action. In our considered opinion, mere issuance of guideline does not absolve a bank of all its responsibilities.  Banks are duty bound to put in place stringent security measures to protect consumer interests at all costs. In any case, if the OPs are so desperate to follow hands-off policy in such matters, they should strictly caution security personnel from playing good Samaritans whenever a customer approaches them for help. Ideally, banks should restrict entry of security personnel inside the ATM centre when a customer remains inside it.    

In the present case, as we find, the Complainant runs a tea stall and we may presume that he is almost an illiterate person.  Therefore, it cannot be stated with certainty that it was an intentional laches on his part.  

Considering the fact that two withdrawals were made from the account of the Complainant in quick succession within ONE seconds, it is opined by the OP No. 2 that both transactions took place in presence of the Complainant.  It appears from the photocopy of electronic journal generated by the ATM machine that in between 09-29 a.m. and 09.31 a.m., three financial transactions worth Rs. 10,000/- each took place on 23-12-2014, out of which two were related to the account of the Complainant. By such parity of reasoning, as articulated by the OP No. 2, the Complainant was present inside the ATM counter when another person was withdrawing money from his account at 09.29 a.m.  Such a possibility clearly points out gross dereliction of duty on the part of the security guard of the ATM counter.  The primary reason of deploying security guards at the ATM centers, it appears, is to keep fraudsters at bay.  It gives rise to the question, why the concerned security guard of the ATM Centre did allowed Complainant inside the ATM Centre at 09.29 a.m., when seemingly another person was withdrawing money through the ATM machine. 

We find, on receipt of Complainant’s complaint through the OP No. 1, the OP No. 2 verified its ATM machine and found that the transactions were genuine.  However, most surprisingly, it has not placed on record copy of its investigation report that would have given us a fair idea about how diligently the investigation was carried out.  There is no clarity as to whether or not the concerned security guard was duly quizzed by the investigating officer; if at all any investigation worth its name was made into the allegation.

It is stated by the OP No. 2 that it supplied CCTV footage to the OP No. 1.  However, it is refuted by the OP No. 1 stating that although it asked the OP No. 2 to share CCTV footage with it, the latter only provided few snap shots - that too were completely blank.  From the photocopies of concerned snap shots on record, we find that the same are totally blank, which clearly defeats the very purpose of having it and most importantly, none of the said snap shots were taken at the material point of time, i.e., in between 09-30 a.m. and 09.31 a.m. The reluctance of the OP No. 2 to come clean on the matter does raise eyebrows. 

While instances of fraudulent withdrawals from ATM centers are making headlines every now and then, ATM centers being the extension of bank premises, banks are duty bound to put in place robust security measures, including installation of state of art CCTV cameras that is capable of taking crystal clear picture round the clock.  OP No. 2 must own up due responsibility for its failure to provide material proof in support of its claim.

Although the OP No. 2 did not admit it in as many words, given the fact that next transaction at the said ATM machine took place at 09.37 a.m., and no material proof is put forth from the side of the OP No. 2 to establish that the disputed transaction was indeed carried out by the Complainant or that save and except the security guard of the ATM Centre, any other person was present inside the ATM centre at 9.31 a.m., indications are ripe that the concerned security guard spirited away the money from the account of the Complainant through unfair means though there is no solid evidence in support to it.   T the yet the OP No. 2 cannot avoid its vicarious liability in this regard. We, therefore, hold it responsible to return the money to the Complainant with interest.

The Complainant has claimed compensation and litigation costs.  However, keeping in mind his negligent act in the matter, we are not inclined to award any relief on these scores to him.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That CC/88/2016 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP No. 2 and dismissed against OP No. 1. OP No. 2 is directed to pay, within 40 days hence, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant together with an interest of 10% on the said amount till payment from 23-12-14 i.d., it would be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 150/- per diem from this day till compliance of this order in toto.

Let free copies of the Judgement be supplied to the parties.