Order-13.
Date-04/08/2015.
Complainant Smt. Sangita Rathod by filing this complaint has submitted that she is an Savings Bank A/c. holder of Canara Bank (Brabourne Road Branch) for last 7 years having SB A/c. No. 0344101129086.
For her need of money on 14.07.2014 at about 12:05 p.m. complainant went to ICICI ATM (Kasba New Market near Vasan Eye Care) and then she entered her ATM Card and thereafter she placed her ATM PIN No. But after that the ATM was totally blank. The screen of the ATM did not reflect anything, only it was found blank. After that complainant pressed both the cancel and clear bottom, but machine was not working at all at that time. But due to her necessity to withdraw money, she went to another ATM and observed that Rs. 10,000/- had already been deducted from her account.
Observing that, she was perplexed and reported the matter to the Branch Manager of Canara Bank narrating the incident and they replied that the matter would be reported after two weeks and when she went to know the fate of that, it was reported by the Branch Manager of the Canara Bank that it was a successful transaction. So, they have nothing to do only ICICI Bank may give the answer.
Thereafter complainant went to ICICI Bank, Kasba Branch and Kasba Main Branch (Dalhousie Branch) and narrated the incident, but both the Banks did not cooperate so the complainant asked to provide CCTV Footage by they told that it would be supplied later on. But even after repeated requests that was not supplied and ultimately complainant reported the matter to Kasba Police Station narrating the incident.
Due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, complainant was harassed and also suffered mental pain and sufferings including financial loss for which complainant filed this complaint for redressal.
On the other hand op Canara Bank by filing this complaint submitted that the ATM was not of their bank, it was of ICICI Bank and only ICICI Bank can explain for what reason in such manner the amount was withdrawn when ICICI Bank reported that it was a successful transaction.
Further it is submitted that no doubt complainant is a SB A/c. holder and that was opened in the name of S. Rathod on 04.12.2012. It is also submitted that an application was submitted by the op no. 1 on 17.07.2014 and said application was registered on the same date and for the CCTV Footage of ATM Package. But op no.1 further submitted that op informed that the transaction was made by the complainant on 15.07.2014 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was successful transaction and same was communicated as admitted herself in the instant complaint.
It is further submitted that complainant did not ask for CCTV Footage in her application made to the op no.1 and moreover the ATM from which the cash was withdrawn by the complainant belongs to ICICI Bank, i.e. op nos. 2 & 3 respectively so that authority can resolve the matter and there is no laches and negligence on the part of the op no.1 and further submitted that the entire allegation is false and fabricated and this op no.1 is no way liable for any compensation etc.
On the other hand op nos. 2 & 3 by filing written statement submitted that complainant is not a consumer under this ops and the allegation of the complainant is that they have denied all disputes, allegations made by the complainant and it is submitted by the op nos. 2 & 3 that on repeated requests from the complainant, op conducted necessary internal investigation and ascertained that the said card was in the hands of a third party in the absence of the same being handed over and shared by the complainant. The third party entered the PIN Number and withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the said ATM maintained by the ops.
On perusal of the ATM they understood that the complainant lodged a complaint before the Kasba Police Station and investigation is progressing. Op has further submitted that on perusal of the ATM report and the EJ copy dated 15.07.2014 it is clear that the disputed transaction in question is successful in nature. The ops further submitted that there was no excess report in the said ATM on 15.07.2014 nor there is any report of the said ATM was not working.
It is further submitted that the said ATM was working properly and whole day the ATM functioned properly and many individuals withdrew money from the said ATM but no other person other than the complainant lodged any complaint, but there is no allegation about non-functioning of the said ATM and there is no defect in the ATM in dispensing money, if actually the ATM was not functioning, in that case many complaints would have been made and disputes raised by other ATM holders, however no such complaint or dispute had been made or raised by other customers.
It is also alleged that EJ report of the concerned ATM is the final document whether ATM actually transacted or was working and in the present case the transaction has been reported as successful. So, there is/was no question of defect in the said ATM and the entire allegation is false and fabricated and in fact op asked the complainant CCTV footage but complainant refused to accept the said clippings, though op took proper step, asked the complainant for a speedier investigation in this regard, however such efforts have not proven fruitful on the part of the ops and in the above circumstances, they prayed for dismissal of this case.
Decision with reasons
On critical study of the complaint, written versions and particularly the written version of the op nos. 2 & 3 (ICICI Bank) and also the documents we are confirmed that complainant on the very date of incident that is on 15.07.2014 went to the ICICI ATM Counter near Kasba, New Market to withdraw a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. It is admitted by the complainant that she inserted ATM card and also pressed ATM PIN code, but her allegation is that she did not find any result in the screen and screen was found blank and as per her version, she pressed cancel and clear button and but found that the said ATM did not reflect in this screen, so, she went to another ATM for withdrawing money but she found that Rs. 10,000/- had already been withdrawn. But both the ops have stated that transaction was successful and EJ Report supports that.
Now question is for what reason this lady shall have to tell a lie for Rs. 10,000/-. Invariably certain incident took place and in this regard we have gone through the written version of the op nos. 2 & 3 who admitted that deducted of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn by third party (male person) as it is detected after investigation and ascertaining the CCTV footage that withdrawal was made by male person, not by female and op has further submitted that third party entered the PIN and have withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the ATM maintained by the op. Then it is clear that Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn at about 12:05:10 hours and was a successful transaction.
But complainant has submitted that she went to the bank at about 12:05 pm. and she was there for only 4 to 5 minutes but she failed to get the money but when she found that the entire screen of the ATM was blank she pressed bottom cancel and clear button but no result. Then she lefrt the said ATM about 12:10 p.m. but the transaction was made on 12:05:10 and it is admitted by the op nos. 2 & 3 that from the CCTV one male person withdrew the amount by pressing the PIN Code that means CCTV Footage did not reflect that this fellow lady withdrew the amount only putting PIN Code and by inserting ATM card this lady withdrew money is not reflected in the CCTV footage. But that is incidentally admitted. It is proved money was not transacted at the time of transaction as per statement of the complainant in between 12:05 p.m. to 12:10 hours and it is also admitted fact that lady did not receive any money from the said machine, that means there was some hacker surrounding the ATM who managed to control the ATM by putting such devices or applying Malware process that means when the complainant inserted the card and put her PIN code, that was controlled by the hackers by devices or malware process and controlled the machine to reflect any transaction. This procedure is always adopted by the hackers at the time of ATM hacking to control ATM transaction by the customer.
Most interesting factor is that in this case, ops have not stated that there was no chance of hackers or any third person, to control ATM by placing any device because there is anti-device fixed with the said ATM. It is clear that there is no certificate submitted by the bank or the ICICI Bank that if any person tries to hack the said machine, there was no scope for the hackers to control ATM. But in the present case it is proved that third person pressed PIN Code and got money and went away. So it is proved that complainant did not receive any money or any such impression was there that complainant inserted card and put PIN Code.
So, we are convinced to hold that hackers operated the said machine when that lady was in the ATM and controlled the entire transaction as made by the complainant and that was controlled for which complainant did not get any result and found nothing is reflected in the screen. So, she put cancel and clear button and went away, thereafter the hackers appeared before the machine and PIN code was reflected and after collecting that number, they entered PIN number and collected the same, most probably none is aware of the fact that ATM can be controlled by the hackers by adopting thousands of process. Hacking is the subject of computer technology and in fact all over the world different type of hacking system and procedure are being invented by the brainee student of computer technology and that had been used by so many hackers. There is a book on hacking in computer technology and to defend such hacking procedure anti-hacking theorization are being invented daily and such inventions are being applied in the ATM that is internet system, web-controlling etc.
But after handling so many cases, we have gathered that anti devices that is FIS is not at all tagged with ATM for which in the present case this ATM was controlled by the hacker and hacker withdrew the said money which is proved by the Bank that lady did not withdraw the same, so third person withdrew the same that means by the hacker but that cannot be controlled by the Bank. There is no anti devices (FIS) tagged with the said machine. In this regard it is to be mentioned that outside India many countries have already introduced anti devices (FIS) against all ATMs only to control hacking but in India that is not applied.
Truth is that complainant did not get any money and truth is that her transaction did not reflect any impression even after pressing the PIN code and even after pressing cancel and clear button it was also not reflected because it was completely controlled by hacker surrounding the ATM. So, it is proved that complainant’s allegation is completely correct, truthful and op nos. 1 & 2 confirmed that this lady did not take any money.
Anyhow op nos. 1 & 2 have tried to convince that invariably complainant supplied PIN code number to the third person who went there and pressed PIN code and withdrew the money. But it is to be mentioned that if anyone does not possess the ATM card for opening the ATM, in that case only by putting or pressing PIN code number no transaction can be operated because ATM card is first key to open the account number. If ATM card is not entrusted or inserted, there is no scope to transact by only placing or pressing PIN code. So, allegation as made by the op nos. 1 & 2 is completely unscientific and idiotic, theorization as per computer technology and science.
In the light of the above observation, we are convinced to hold that the ICICI Bank and the Canara Bank had an internal contract for using the ICICI machine by the Canara bank customers. So, in this case, both Canara Bank and ICICI Bank are liable for any loss of money due to using ATM placed by ICICI Bank and taking the help of said machine by the Canara Bank and in the present case after considering the material theorization we are confirmed that malware procedure was adopted in the present case by the hackers who managed to control the said ATM and thereafter hacker did their subsequent act by using that malware devices and put such PIN code which was already collected by malware procedure during the operation of the said ATM and for which it is proved that it is the deficiency on the part of the ops for not placing such ATM having fixed with anti-devices (FIS) and for which the hacker has control over such ATM and in this case it has been done by the hacker and for which the complainant has been deceived by both the banks.
Anyhow op no.1 has tried to say that machine of ICICI Bank was used but this plea is completely callous administration’s plea. But it must be kept in our mind if any bank takes services from any ATM of the other bank, then it is the internal matter and in that case after using the ATM of other bank with whom there is no savings bank account of such customers, in that case the original bank is also equally liable and in the present case both the banks are equally liable for compensation when she did not get any money and when op nos. 1 and 2 as per CCTV confirmed that some other person withdrew the sum invariably the male person.
In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that the allegation of the present complainant is justified and is proved beyond any manner of doubt for which the deficiency and negligence of service on the part of the ops is well proved for which complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against each bank.
Ops jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 10,000/- which has been deducted from the account of the complainant and also compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order along with litigation cost failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and disobeyance of Forum’s order penal damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day shall be assessed and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Further for repeated disobeyance of Forum’s order after expiry of the stipulated period the penal prosecution u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against them for which they shall be imposed further penalty and fine.
