Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

cc/113/2016

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2016

                                                            Date of institution:  02.12.2016                              

                                                              Date of decision  :   03.11.2017

 

Rajinder Singh son of Sh. Mann Singh resident of Village Ghutind Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. The Manager, Canara Bank, Branch V.P.O. Salana Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib-147301.
2. Canara Bank H.O. No.112, J.C. Road Opposite Town Hall(Map) Banks, Bangalore-560002 through its Signatory.

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                    

 Sh. Inder Jit, Member

                                               

Present :        Sh. B.S.Dhaliwal, Adv., counsel for complainant.

                      Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                      Complainant, Rajinder Singh son of Sh. Mann Singh resident of Village Ghutind Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant got opened his Saving Bank Account No.2128101011500 with OP No.1 and Rs.32,009/- were lying deposited in the said account on 22.11.2016. The complainant had withdrawn Rs.4,000/- on 22.11.2016 out of the said amount of Rs.32,009/-.  Thereafter, on 23.11.2016 when the complainant went to OP No.1 for withdrawal of some amount, the official of OP No.1 returned his withdrawal form  and stated that there is no such amount lying in his account.  When the complainant obtained statement of  bank account, he was shocked to know that Rs.28,663/- has been withdrawn from his saving account at Gurgaon(Haryana) on 23.11.2016 through various transactions.  The complainant requested OP No.1 that he neither applied for withdrawal of Rs.28,663/- from his said account nor used his ATM for withdrawing the said amount, but OP No.1 failed to satisfy the complainant and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also moved an application to the S.H.O. P.S.Amloh regarding the said matter. Thereafter on 24.11.2016 the complainant submitted his sworn affidavit on the asking of OP No.1 but all in vain.  OP No.1 without any right or authority and without the consent of the complainant, in connivance with some other person had illegally withdrawn the amount of Rs.28.663/- from his saving account. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to deposit/credit Rs.28,663/- in the saving bank account of the complainant, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the OPs stated that as per record, the amount of Rs.28,663/- stood withdrawn from his saving bank account on 23.11.2016 and as per norms, rules and regulations, the Bank cannot stop the complainant or the person authorized by the complainant to withdraw any amount from his account through visa card, debit card, ATM etc. It is further stated that if the complainant had not withdrawn the said amount from his account, then some other person might have obtained password from the complainant either in good faith or by alluring the complainant and withdrew the said amount. Hence, no liability can be fastened upon the OPs. The complainant himself admitted in his affidavit that his debit card had been skimmed and fraudulent transactions were put through at different ATM centers in Gurgaon on 23.11.2016. There is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of statement of account Ex. C-2, copy of passbook Ex. C-3, copy of debit card Ex. C-4, copy of complaint to SHO, P.S.Amloh Ex. C-5, copy of affidavit Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Manoj Kumar Jha, Branch Mananger Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence.

5.                    Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it was the sole responsibility of the OPs to send SMS to the complainant, when the amounts were illegally withdrawn from his saving account, so that complainant could have intimated the Bank. He argued that due to negligent act and conduct of the OPs, the said amount of Rs.28.663/- was illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant. Learned counsel further argued that complainant deserves to be compensated for the act and conduct of the OPs.

6.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued that the Bank/OPs cannot stop the complainant or any person authorized by the complainant to withdraw any amount from his account through ATM. He further argued that complainant had himself admitted in his affidavit, that his debit card had been skimmed and fraudulent transactions were done at different ATM centers in Gurgaon on 23.11.2016, thus OPs cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.

7.                   We have gone through the pleadings, evidence, written submissions alongwith the oral arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.  It is an admitted case that fraudulent transactions were done at different ATM centers in Gurgaon on 23.11.2016, ATM card and Pin of the same was also in the possession of the complainant. It has come to our notice that Hon'ble National Commission, in case titled as "State Bank of India vs. Sansar Chand & Ors.” [RP No. 2889/2014 decided on 15.01.2015] has held:

"5. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cash from the account of the complainant could have been withdrawn without use of the ATM card which the petitioner bank had issued to him along with use of the pin which the bank had provided to him. If the complainant himself did not withdraw cash from the bank on 10-11-2011, as is claimed by him, his ATM card must have been stolen or otherwise obtained by some unscrupulous person. Not only that, the ATM pin must have been either disclosed by the complainant to the person who withdrew cash from the bank or he would not have kept it in safe custody as a result of which the person who withdrew the money through the use of the ATM could lay his hand on the said pin and later feed the pin in the ATM machine while using the ATM card issued to the complainant. Therefore, no deficiency in services is made out on account of the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from the bank account of the complainant on 10-11-2011".    

8.                   Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble National Commission, the present complaint is being disposed off with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of law for redressal of his grievances.  Parties to bear their own cost.

9.         The arguments on the complaint were heard on 27.10.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 03.11.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

 

(Inder Jit)       

 Member