Orissa

Cuttak

CC/24/2014

Tapan Kumar Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.24/2014

 

Sri Tapan Kumar Pradhan.

At/PO:Oranda,P.S:Guirudijahtia,

Diost:Cuttack.                                                                            … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1. Branch Manager,,

State Bank of India,

Khuntuni Branch,Khuntuni,

                Athagarh,Cuttack

 

 

2. The Chief General Manager,

S,.B.I Local Head Office,

Bhubaneswar,Unit-1,

Dist:Khurda.                                                                            … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:              Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     14.02.2014. 

Date of Order:  23.10.2017.

 

For the complainant        :       Sri B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                      :       Sri B.N.Udgata,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

                The case is against deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

1. The complaint in nutshell is that the complainant was having a S.B.Account with O.P. No.1 vide A/c No.11259948573 (Annexure-1) and also had a ATM card (Annexure-2).  On 25.10.2013 the complainant received messages through his mobile phone that a total sum of Rs.50,000/- has been withdrawn from his Bank account on six occasions on the same day within a short interval of time.(copy of accounts statement vide Anenxure-3).  He lodged a complaint with the Bank for such wrongful transactions and a copy of accounts statement was also handed over to the complainant by the Bank authority. (Annexure-4).  The complainant submitted a detailed report of such complaint to S.P, CID, Crime Branch on 29.10.2013. (Annexure-5).  The S.P, C.I.D, Crime Branch intimated S.P,Cuttack to investigate the matter.(Annexure-6).  O.P.1 gave a detailed report regarding the on line transactions made on 25.10.13(Annexure-7).  The complainant requested the O.P.Bank(O.P.2) to get back his money(Annexure-8).  But in vain.  Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to get back his lost amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest as applicable and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service, legal expenses worth Rs.15,000/- and compensation worth Rs.15,000/-.  Thus he has claimed a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.Ps.
2. The O.Ps vide their written version dt.20.06.2014  has intimated that the complainant is having a S.B.Account with the O.P. Bank and has also availed ATM facility for smooth transactions.  As per terms and conditions of ATM card, the card holder is responsible to ensure that the knowledge of the PIN/PIN trailer does not fall into any other person’s hand.  The Bank has the authority to debit the designated account of the card holder for all withdrawals effected by the card holder using the card as evidenced by the Banking records which will be conclusive and binding on the card holder.  The transaction record generated by the ATM or POS will be binding and conclusive unless verified otherwise and corrected by the Bank.  The verified and corrected amount will be binding on the card holder.  The bank shall not be liable for any loss caused by technical break down of the payment system.  The complainant has used the card on several occasions and has thereby accepted the above terms and conditions.  Regarding the transactions worth Rs.50,000/-, the complainant was supplied with the accounts statement as requested by him.  It is submitted that no transaction can be made without the knowledge of the complainant and without using ATM card and PIN of the complainant.  As such the above transactions have been made by using the ATM card and PIN number of the complainant.   That the S.P, CID, Crime Branch has issued a letter to S.P,Cuttack to investigate the matter as per the complaint are  beyond the knowledge of the O.P.  But it is a fact that IIC,Khuntuni Police Station had came to the Branch and has enquired regarding the matter and also has taken the statement from the branch.  There are no latches on the part of the Bank authorities.
3. We have gone through the case records in details, perused minutely the documents as submitted by the complainant and as well as by the O.Ps.  It is learnt that the complainant is having a S.B.Account with O.P No.1 (Khuntuni Branch of SBI) vide A/c No. 11259948573 since 18.09.2013.  He has also availed ATM facility from O.P Bank since 2013.  On 25.10.2013 there were six nos. of POS transactions in the S.B Account of the complainant amounting to Rs.50,000/- and such amount was debited from his S.B.Account.  The S.B.Account of the customer was blocked subsequently but the amount thus paid was not received by the complainant.  It is a fact that the PIN of the ATM card was known to the card holder (complainant) only and any other man cannot operate the A/c, cannot withdraw from the ATM or cannot pay towards POS from the said account unless the PIN is shared/disclosed to some other person.  Since the transactions were marked as POS it is a clear case of Internet Banking.     As per terms and conditions governing Internet Banking, the Bank was not liable for any loss due to unauthorized transfer of funds, through unauthorized access, phishing attacks and hijack or by way of any other cyber attacks etc.  From the overall facts and circumstances of the case, however, it is clear that if any unauthorized transaction has been made by anybody, it is subject of criminal investigation only.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank towards the complainant has not been proved anywhere.  It was decided by Hon’ble National Commission vide case No.2014 (2) CPR 776 (NC) that Bank is not responsible for transactions made on Internet Banking.   It was also decided by Hon’ble National Commission vide Case No.2015(1) CPR 143(NC) that “without knowing PIN it is not possible for a third person to withdraw any cash though ATM/debit card issued to customer.”

ORDER

Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, the complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps, hence the case is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 23^rd day of October,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                             Member.

 

 

                                                                                                                                     (   Sri D.C.Barik  )

                                                                                                                                           President.

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                          (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                                Member(W).