Haryana

Panchkula

CC/87/2016

PUKAR CHAUDHARY. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANARA BANK & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

ABHINEET TANEJA.

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	87 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	20.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	17.03.2017

 

Pukar Chaudhary s/o Sh.Pyare Bhagat, R/o House No.214, Sector 12-A, Rally, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                               ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Canara Bank through its Regional Manager, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

2.       The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Sector-10, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                       ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Abhineet Taneja, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Nitin Grover, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

 

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he is the holder of an account bearing No.1624108014449 with Op No.1. The complainant was also using the ATM facility. The ATM card of the complainant remained in safe custody of the son of the complainant namely Sh.Sandeep Kumar who is also an account holder of the Op NO.1. On 17.01.2016, the complainant alongwith his friend was coming from Hajipur via train, he received a message of withdrawal of the sum of Rs.100/- from his account. Thereafter, the complainant again received another message of withdrawal from his account. The complainant contacted his son telephonically to confirm about the withdrawal of amount but his son told that he had not withdrawn any amount from the ATM. The complainant told his son Sh.Sandeep Kumar to get the card blocked by calling on the helpline number and the son of the complainant immediately called on the helpline No.18004256000 which was not working. Then the son of the complainant called other helpline No.18004257000 and there was a voice message that “the working hours are from Monday to Saturday from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM”. Thereafter, the complainant again received a message of withdrawal of money from his account. On asking, the son of the complainant got the mobile number of the Manager of the Bank i.e. OP NO.2 and called the Op NO.2 who gave another No.8025582470, 8022115526, 9449249227 and 8025329113 for getting the card blocked. The son of the complainant called on NO.8025329113 and ultimately the ATM card of the complainant was blocked after the long span of 2-3 hours and a sum of Rs.39,990/- had already been withdrawn from the account of the complainant till then. The Op No.2 informed the complainant that the number of online transactions were done from the account of the complainant on 17.01.2016 and assured the complainant that the withdrawn amount would be credited in the account of the complainant soon but in vain. The complainant also gave written request on 18.01.2016 to the Ops but after lapse of two months but the Ops did not inform the complainant as to what action had been taken by them. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. In reply, the Ops filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complaint made by the complainant was made online and all the transactions were taken from 10:02 am to 11:00 am on 17.01.2016. It is submitted that the complainant has not placed on record any call details. It is submitted that the complainant and his son Sandeep Kumar were not having a joint account and the ATM card was also issued to the complainant against his saving account. It is submitted that, as per norms of the bank, the ATM card ought to be used by the complainant by using secret 4 digit ATM PIN Code number and that number is not to be disclosed to anyone. It is submitted that if the account holder allowed any person to use the ATM and disclosed the ATM pin code and any mis-hap/withdrawal of any amount took place, the account holder would be responsible for any incident. It is submitted that, as per version of the complainant, the ATM card generally remained with his son and at the time of incident, the card was admittedly with his son. Therefore, the Ops could not be liable for the misuse/negligent behavior of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant wrote a letter dated 18.01.2016 to the Ops but the request was not plausible and the request of the complainant was declined which was communicated to the complainant verbally on the same day. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and they prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. In order to prove his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered the evidence affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely.
5. The case of complainant is that he was having saving Bank account bearing No.1624108014449 with facility of ATM Card. The ATM card of the complainant remained in the safe custody of his son namely Sandeep Kumar, who is an account holder of the Op NO.1. On 17.01.2016, the complainant alongwith his friend was travelling from Hajipur to Chandigarh. He received a message of withdrawal of a sum of Rs.100/- from his account. Thereafter, the complainant received another message of withdrawal from his account. The complainant contacted his son telephonically to confirm about the withdrawal of the amount but his son told him that he has not withdrawn any amount. The complainant asked his son to get the card blocked by calling helpline number and the son of the complainant immediately called helpline number 18004256000 which was not working. Then the son of the complainant called other helpline No.18004257000 and there was a voice message that the working hours are from Monday to Saturday from 8 am to 8 pm. During that period, the complainant again received a message of withdrawal of money from his account. The son of the complainant got mobile number of the Manager of the Bank i.e. Op No.2 and the Op No.2 gave another No.8025582470, 8022115526, 9449249227 and 8025329113 for getting the card blocked. The son of the complainant called on No.8025329113 and ultimately the card of the complainant was blocked after the long span of the 2 hours. During that period, an amount of Rs.39,990/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant.
6. On the other hand, the Ops submitted that the transactions had taken place from 10 am to 11 am, on 17.01.2016. The son of the complainant Sandeep Kumar and the complainant were not having the joint account and the ATM card was issued to the complainant. As per norms of the Bank, the ATM card ought to be used by the complainant by using secret 4 digits ATM pin code number and that number is not to be disclosed to anyone.
7. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that son of the complainant Sandeep Kumar was using ATM card of the complainant and in his affidavit (Annexure C-6) the son of the complainant admitted that he was using the ATM card of his father i.e. complainant. In his affidavit, he has not mentioned that he has not disclosed the secret 4 digits ATM pin code to any other person. He simply stated that he received a call from his father who sought confirmation about the withdrawal of the amount from the ATM which was replied in negative. The complainant has also not placed on record any call details made by him and his son regarding blockage of ATM card. The son of the complainant Sandeep Kumar admitted that the card was got blocked at around 1 pm and during that period an amount of Rs.39,990/- was already withdrawn from the account of the complainant. The complainant has mentioned in his complaint that he received the various messages of withdrawal of amount from his account but he has not placed on record any such messages. Moreover, the complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the ATM by handing over his ATM card to his son and disclosed secret 4 digits pin code to his son.
8. The point for consideration is very simple. The ATM facility can be operated by the account holder and that too by the user of a pin code which he is not expected to disclose to anybody else. If the ATM holder discloses the pin code to anyone, be it his son, he has to bear the brunt of any unauthorized withdrawal from his account.
9. Further in order to get the complaint allowed, it was incumbent upon the complainant to produce on record not only the messages of withdrawal through ATM but also the calls he made/messages he is averred to have sent to his son. The production of call detail record, either of his own or his son, was required in order to buttress the plea that he did get concerned about unauthorized withdrawals from his account. For want of that proof, it cannot be said that the complainant has been able to prove the averments in the complaint.
10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that Bank is not responsible in such situation and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. The parties shall bear their own costs.
11. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

17.03.2017                    ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                                       MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.      

 

                                                          DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT