DATE OF FILING: 24.9.2012.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 25.4.2016.
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
Deficiency in banking service is the sole allegation of the complainant.
2. Brief case of the complainant is that he is the customer of opposite party having State Bank of India S.B. Account No. 11625436048 Kodala Branch, Kodala. He is also availing ATM facilities and accordingly an ATM card was issued by the O.P.Bank in his favour to make his transaction and the petitioner is regularly getting service from the O.P. since last 22 years. He further alleged that on dated 2.7.2012 the complainant withdrawn Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) from the ATM counter at Jatani State Bank of India, but never withdrawn second time from that ATM counter of Jatani on that same day. But unfortunately on dated 27.7.2012 when the complainant operated the ATM at Kodala State Bank of India to enquire the balance amount in the account in order to withdrawn, he found and became astonished from the slip/mini statement of the ATM that Rs.15,000/- was withdrawn from his account on dated 2.7.2012. Immediately he made a written complaint on dated 27.7.2012 before the O.P. and on dated 18.8.2012 on the advice of O.P. since no wrong has been committed by the Bank, hence report to Police station to get the amount of Rs.15,000/-, the complainant lodged an F.I.R. before the Kodala Police station on dated 18.8.2012, but no result has been come out to that effect. Despite his persuasion to the O.P, no action was taken to get refund of the amount so finding no other way out, the complainant has filed this present consumer complaint with a prayer to direct the O.P. to pay the double of deducted amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) and compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and mental torture and Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand) only towards litigation expenses in the interest of natural justice.
3. In support of his case the complainant has filed certain documents which are placed on record.
4. The O.P. entered its appearance through learned counsel on dated 16.1.2013 and filed written version on dated 18.6.2013 resisting the claim of complainant. It is submitted by the O.P. that the ATM card was issued to the account holder subject to acceptance of term and conditions. The account holder should take adequate precaution to protect his own interest and money while operating their ATM card with the existing facilities. It further submitted that no ATM transaction is possible without simultaneous use of card and pin number. According to the O.P. in the case of the complainant the pin number and card was with the complainant and it is not possible to operate the ATM without of his conveyance and knowledge. As per their records the ATM transaction was successful and a successful transaction is not possible without inserting a valid ATM card and entering the correct PIN. Therefore, the O.P. is neither liable to pay the double of deducted amount of Rs.30,000/-, nor responsible to pay Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and mental torture and Rs.8,000/- towards litigation expenses etc. as claimed by the complainant. However, it is raised objection regarding maintainability of the case on the ground of nonjoinder and mis-joinder of party and also on the ground of jurisdiction.
5. In support of his case the O.P. filed the original copy of statement account bearing No.11625436048 of complainant.
6. We have gone through the case in detail and perused the documents filed on record. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the O.P. and gone through the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties in extenso. Neither the complainant nor his Advocate are present at the time of hearing. So we decide the case on merit.
7. It is not disputed that the complainant is a customer of O.P. having S.B. Account No.11625436048 and he was availing the facility of ATM transactions. It is the case of the complainant that he operates the ATM card and the card and PIN number were kept by him. He could able to know his balance on transaction through mini statement. On dated 2.7.2012 he withdraw Rs.5000/- at Jatani SBI ATM counter, but never operated second time in that ATM. On dated 27.7.2012 after 24 days approximately the petitioner operated the ATM at Kodala SBI in order to withdraw the amount and enquired the balance amount of the account of petitioner. Unfortunately the slip of the ATM informed the withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- withdrawn the petitioner had never operated to withdraw the same wrongful withdrawn. Presuming unauthorized and fraudulent withdrawal from his account, he on dated 27.7.2012 immediately brought to the notice of O.P. through written complaint. He also filed F.I.R. before Kodala Police station on dated 18.8.2012. It is pleaded by the complainant that he is innocent and the fraudulent withdrawal of such a big amount is keeping him in a fix all through with mental agony. Therefore, the O.P. would be liable to reimburse the amount withdrawn with interest and compensation as prayed for in the petition of complaint.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. pleaded, that withdrawal of cash is not possible without inserting ATM card without entering the confidential PIN number given to the complainant. It is also pleaded that it is the duty of the complainant or ATM card holder to keep the PIN number as secret and confidential and not to divulge it to anybody. The learned counsel for the O.P. at the same time relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of State Bank of India versus K.K. Bhalla in the Revision Petition No. 3182 of 2008 and contended that in the line of verdict of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi the case is liable to be dismissed as no deficiency of service or negligence is proved on the part of the O.P.
9. It is a fact that the money of the complainant was withdrawn and the complainant has denied to have drawn it. It is also to be noted that the complainant was quite vigilant bringing the whole matter to the notice of the Bank immediately and lodging an FIR in this regard. It also appears that the Bank was apparently convinced about the bonafide of the complaint of the complainant. It was the obligation of the Opposite Party Bank to investigate into the matter through CC TV footage to reach at the conclusion as to whether the complainant was actually drawn the amount or the amount was drawn in fraudulent manner by any stranger. The O.P. has not produced the report of the CC TV footage of that period to clarify the matter better. Moreover, it is seen that such type of fraudulent withdrawal are happening now-a-days and there are a number of cases in this regard we have already dealt with. In support of the pleadings and case of the complainant, we rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi reported in the case of Bhadra N.Dalal versus Bank of India (2012) CJ 177 (N.C) and Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal in the case of State Bank of India versus Hariom Tiwari and another reported in 2011 CJ 189 (W.B.) where in it is held that in case of ATM withdrawal of a customer in fraudulent manner and if it is informed to the Bank, it is the obligation of the concerned Bank to go through the CCTV footage, inquire into it and the genuine complaint must be considered by reimbursing the amount withdrawn fraudulently.
10. The complainant has come up with this case before this Forum to get privilege under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This Forum has been created under the beneficial legislation to help socio-economically under privileged to settle their grievances quickly with least expenses in a sympathetic manner. Taking into account the socio economic back ground as well as keeping in view the spirit of the legislation and having regard to the verdict of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi as stated above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 15,000/-.
In view of the above and consider to the facts of the case from all its ramifications, we allow the case against Opposite Party. We accordingly, direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only to the saving Bank account of the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recovery the entire amount U/S 25/27 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986. This case is disposed of accordingly.
Order is pronounced in the open Forum today on 25th April 2016.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
