CC Filed on 13.10.2008<br /> Disposed on 08.07.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 08th day of July 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 78/2008<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Rajendra Kumar,<br /> Police Sub-Inspector,<br /> Kolar Traffic Police,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. T.R. Jayaram) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> State Bank of Mysore,<br /> Kolar Branch,<br /> Gowripet,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> Represented by its<br /> Branch Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. V. Sreedhara Murthy)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- with interest and costs for the wrongful debit entry of Rs.10,000/- dated 27.05.2008 and Rs.8,000/- dated 15.06.2008 in his S.B. Account.<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant is having a S.B. Account in the OP Bank vide S.B. account No. 54042454240 and he also availed ATM facility vide ATM card No. 5046454008000018079. The complainant was withdrawing the amount from the S.B. account by using the ATM card from ATM centre. It is alleged that on 03.07.2008 the complainant came to know that there were debit entries in his S.B. account for Rs.10,000/- and for Rs.8,000/- dated 27.05.2008 and 15.06.2008 respectively shown to have been drawn by using the ATM card and that some one by using fake ATM card must have drawn the said amounts. It is alleged that immediately he lodged a complaint to OP on 03.07.2008 to effect correction of the wrongful debit entries and also to change his ATM card by taking back the ATM card already issued and he surrendered the said ATM card. The said allegation implies that the complainant himself had not drawn any amount on 27.05.2008 and 15.06.2008. It is alleged that the OP acknowledge the receipt of the said complaint dated 03.07.2008 and had issued a new ATM card to complainant as per his request, but did not reverse the wrongful debit entries. Therefore the complainant filed the present complaint on 13.10.2008. <br /> <br /> 3. The OP appeared and filed its version. It is not disputed that the complainant is one of the customers having S.B. account with facility of ATM card as alleged in the complaint. It is admitted that on 03.07.2008 it received the complaint tendered by complainant and that subsequently it issued a new ATM card and also secret password (PIN) as per the request of complainant. It is contended that on verification of the journal print logs relating to disputed debit entries, it was found that the said transactions had taken place on the respective dates and the amounts were actually drawn by using the ATM card of complainant. The OP has produced the copy of relevant journal print logs. It is contended that it is the responsibility of complainant to have the safe custody of ATM card and to maintain the secrecy of PIN and that the OP would not be in any way responsible for the withdrawals done using the card and the PIN by the customer or by any one getting hold of the card and PIN. The OP denied the possibility of some one fabricating fake ATM card for withdrawal of amount in the account of complainant. Therefore the OP has requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed affidavits repeating the averments made in their pleadings. The complainant has filed copy of the relevant entries in his pass book. The OP has filed relevant journal print logs of the disputed entries. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.<br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves that there <br /> was deficiency in service?<br /> <br /> Point No.2: To what order?<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the records and the working system of ATM our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: Considering the technology of ATM (Automated Teller Machine) working system, it can be said that ATM cannot be operated and transaction is not possible unless the ATM card is inserted in the ATM and secret password is fed by the cardholder. The Learned Counsel for complainant submits that some one might have created the forged card and somehow coming to know the secret password (PIN) might have drawn the amount. Further he submitted that there might be some error in the working system of ATM. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for OP contended that creating forged ATM card and knowing the secret password through some other source is highly remote and some one must have used the ATM card provided to complainant and complainant must have divulged the secret PIN number provided to him to some other person. <br /> <br /> Some one fabricating ATM card and fraudulently obtaining the secret password provided to complainant cannot be inferred unless there are direct or circumstantial evidence. The complainant except making such bare allegations, has not produced any direct or circumstantial evidence. The verification of Video Surveillance System (VSS) cassette installed if any in the ATM centre would have helped a lot to find out the culprit. It appears both parties have not made any attempt for it. The pleading and evidence of both parties is silent in this regard. The complainant himself has alleged in his complaint that someone has used fake ATM card. He immediately applied for change of ATM card. His complaint is silent that he had not handed over ATM card to any other person and he had not divulged the secret password. The journal print log shows that both the transactions were successful and they were done by using the ATM card issued to complainant. Considering the evidence as a whole we think the complainant has failed to establish that the withdrawal was by use of fabricated ATM card and getting illegally the secret password and that the disputed debit entries were due to the error in the working system of ATM. Hence point No.1 is held in negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: As point No.1 is held in negative the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 08th day of July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />