District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 430/2020.
Date of Institution:11.11.2020.
Date of Order:.12.06.2023
1. Sunita Singh, D/o Lt. Tej Narayan Singh, resident of B-201, Golf Enclave, Sector-21C, Faridabad – 121001.
2. Yash Raj Singh S/o. Retd, Col. Rajeev Kumar Singh, resident of B-201, Gold Enclave, Secator-21C, Faridabad – 121001.
…….Complainants……..
Versus
1. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 69, Sector-21C, Faridabad, Haryana.
2. Chairman, State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai – 400021.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Parmod Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. D.K.Sharma, counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that Sunita Singh, currently rsiding in B-201, Golf Enclave, Sector-21-C, Faridabad filed a complaint against fraudulent transactions on 2nd January 2019 alongwith his son Yash Raj Singh. They were joint account holders in State Bank of India (Account No. 30121974927: ATM Card No. 5103 7203 1038 7053). The total disputed amount of the transaction was Rs.1,20,000/-. He even filed multiple complaints with RBI (201920016002581 and 202021016001978) but they closed it under unappealable clauses. They had also come to some resolution with the SBI, whereby SBI transferred only Rs.40,000/- as the settlement amount. Neither RBI nor SBI gave him any notification before coming to this settlement and had still not provided a rationale or a written communication.
They received new ATM card from SBI which was activated by him on 27th December 2018. The ATM card was alwas with him (as primary joint account holder) and he still had the ATM card. The ATM pin was not shared with anyone. Only he know of the ATM pin, even his son (Yash Raj Singh, who was the secondary joint holder) did not know about it. On 29, 30,31 December 2018 and Ist and 2nd January 2019 several fraudulent transactions were made via ATM and cash was withdrawn The ATM card was always with him and was still under his possession. The ATM pin was not shared with anyone. His son (Yash Raj Singh) and he were joint account holders. He had no details about the card. ON 2nd January 2019, they put in official complaint to the SBI customer care, got the ATM blocked, it took more than two hours to lodge all the complain and get the complaint reference id in front of the Branch Manager, then they immediately rushed to the police to file the complaint . The police report also mentioned that the bank had been irresponsible in this matter and that they were at fault. The bank kept telling them that they would resolve the case within 90 days but they took almost a year then they moved to RBI, using delay tactics as opportunity to hear before coming to the conclusion. The bank even refused to share CCTV footage of the ATM despite, they providing them with the time and location of the ATM where the transaction happened. On top of all this, every time they went to branch office to get an update on the case, they accused them of being thieves and stealing their own hard-earned money. After not getting any sort of response from the SBI despite multiple visits and requests, they registered a complaint with RBI. The complaint Nos. 201920016002581 and 202021016001978. RBI then took more than 1 year to even look at their case. After more than a year, an RBI official reached out to his son.(Yash Raj Singh, secondary joint account holder) He then explained the case facts to the officials and demanded the entire amount as settlement. He even replied to SBI’s response to RBI wherein SBI had clearly mentioned that they did not had the CCTV footage. SBI in their response to RBI had also mentioned that they did not had the CCTV footage. They noticed that amount of Rs.40,000/- was credited to their account as settlement amount. There was no intimation by RBI in any form, written or verbal, regarding the details of the settlement amount. SBI by having agreed to Rs.40,000/- settlement, agree to the fact that they were at fault for these transactions. The details for fraud transaction were as follows:
1. 29th December 2018 – Rs20,000/- withdrawn from location Vikas Marg, TAxn-8466.
2. 29th December 2018 – Rs.20,000/- withdrawn from location Vikas Marg, Txn – 8463.
3. 30th December 2018 – Rs.20,000/- withdrawn from location Nepz Noida Txn – 3958.
4. 31st December 2018 – Rs.20,000/- withdrawn from location Kendriya Vihar, sector 82, Gauam Budh. Txn -8058.
5. 01January 2019 – Rs.20,000/- withdrawn from location Nawada, Txn -9628.
6. 02 January 2019 – Rs.20,000/- withdrawn from location Nalanda, Txn – 9628. He would like to point out various mistakes by the bank.
1. Bank’s mistake 1: How can anyone else withdraw money when he had the ATM and pin was with him. Sunita Singh (Who was the joint primary account holder).
2. Bank’s mistake 2: Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn from his account through the ATM on a single day (29th December 2018), when the limit was Rs.20,000/-.
3. Bank’s mistake 3: Why did they not had any CCTV footage when he gave them the time and ATM location of the transaction? They had even replied to RBI that they did not have footage.
4. RBI& Bank together settled decided on the settlement amount as Rs.40,000/- in June 2020 and directly credited the amount in his account without taking his consent . Due to coronarvirus lock down, he was stuck in his native place Patna (Bihar) at that time.
5 Cleary the bank had been lacking in its security and was completely at fault, but RBI and SBI had colluded to cheat honest taxpayers.
The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) refund the amount of Rs.1,20,000 – Rs.40,000 = Rs.80,000/- with 20% interest till date
b) pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 20,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written
statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that without prejudice to the rights of the bank and without accepting the liability/negligence, the answering opposite party had made a payment of Rs.40,000/- in the account of complainant son 12.06.2020 as per the orders of Banking Ombudsman and in view of the above the present complaint was liable to be dismissed. It seems that the complainant had passed on the PN to some other person who misused the account of the complainant by using the PIN and did successful transactions from the ATM. The possibility of committing the crime by the complainant cannot be ruled out, which was part of investigation by the police authority and Cyber-Cell to track and crack upon the offenders. There was gross negligence on the part of complainant as he was required to keep ATM card and PIN in his own safe custody and possession and to not part with or leak-out the same even to his own family members but it clearly appears that the complainant had not kept the ATM card & PIN in his own safe custody.
The complaint also lodged a complaint before Banking Ombudsman wherein opposite parties were directed to pay the amount of First Two transactions and remaining claim was declined on the ground that the customer was at fault/negligence. Without prejudice to the rights of the bank and without accepting the liability/negligence, the answering opposite party had made a payment of Rs.40,000/- in the account of complainant on 12.06.2020 as per the orders of Banking Ombudsman . Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
the record on the file.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, affidavit of Sunita Singh, photocopies of application, form, SBI card, Statement from 01.10.2018 to 02.01.2019, complaint to The Commissioner of Police, FIR.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Manager, State Bank of India,
Sector-21C, Faridabad
5. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant and prayed for refund the amount of Rs.1,20,000 – Rs.40,000 = Rs.80,000/- with 20% interest till date.
6. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite party has placed on record letter ref. No.CM/2021-22/93 dated 17.02.2022 in which it has been mentioned that “we confirm that first transactons of Rs.20,000/- shown in statement of acocunt No. 30121974927 on dated 29.12.2018 actually pertains to date 28.12.2018, as this transaction occurred at the midnight (at23:57:14) of 28.12.2018 and complete don 29.12.2018. Hence showing on dated 29.12.2019 in the statement of account.”
7
. Keeping in view of the above letter, the Commission is of the opinion that once opposite party has admitted for giving two payments, they cannot pick and choose about the other payments. Hence, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.80,000/- with interest. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as
compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 12.06.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
