BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.182 of 2015
Date of Instt. 30.04.2015
Date of Decision :04.05.2016
Jarnail Singh son of Sohan Singh R/o VPO Bundala, Tehsil Phillaur District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Central Bank of India, at Branch Village Bundala, Tehsil Phillaur, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
2. Central Bank of India, at Central Bank Building, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Hutatma Chowk Fort, Mumbai, through its Managing Director.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Amritpal Singh Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Ravinder Manuja Adv., counsel for the Ops.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant has a bank account No.3271995 517 with OP No.1 bank and he was using all the benefits of banking services against the aforesaid account. The complainant was also using ATM/Debit Card issued by the OP bank against the aforesaid account. The complainant submitted that on 29.12.2013 an amount of Rs.53,500/- has been wrongly debited by the bank to the aforesaid account of the complainant. The complainant came to know about this fact on 4.2.2014 when he got the entry upto date on his bank passbook. The complainant immediately approached the branch manager of OP No.1 who told the complainant that as per their bank record, this amount of Rs.53,500/- has been withdrawn by complainant by using ATM purchase. The complainant submitted that he did not make any such ATM transaction on 29.12.2013 nor he handed over his ATM Card nor disclosed the password to anyone. The complainant filed complaint to the OP No.1 and he also filed complaint to the SSP Rural, Jalandhar. The complainant also served legal notice upon the Ops through registered post and also filed application before Chief Grievance Officer of the OP Bank and also to the banking Ombudsman but neither police nor the banking Ombudsman nor the higher authorities of the bank have solved the problem of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.53,500/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement pleading that this amount of Rs.53,500/- has been rightly/legally debited to the account of the complainant on 29.12.2013 as the complainant swiped the ATM card and did the e-commerce transaction at point of sale. In this regard reply was also given by the OP No.1 to the complainant. The complaint of the complainant was duly entertained by the Ops and the complainant was given assurance that his complaint will be duly verified and the same was actually verified promptly by the OP bank. They sent the matter to the help desk of the bank and they received reply from help desk of the bank in which it was written that ATM holder swiped the ATM card on 29.12.2013 and did e-commerce transaction at point of sale and the transaction is successfully represented by acquirer bank. The complainant was also informed that the POS terminal owner is mobile store. The ATM card was in possession of the complainant and the pin-code was also known to the complainant. OP bank specifically mentioned that no OTP (One time password) was issued by the bank to the complainant when e-commerce transaction is done by the ATM card holder at the point of sale on 29.12.2013. The reply received from the help desk, was supplied to the complainant immediately. The complainant himself admitted that he was making use of all beneficial services provided by the OP bank against the aforesaid account. Complainant is not a layman rather he was conversant with the e-facilities provided by the bank. As such, this amount i.e. Rs.53,500/- has been rightly debited to the account of the complainant as that e-transaction was successful. OPs denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and evidence of the complainant was closed by order.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant has a bank account No.3271995517 with OP No.1 bank and he was using all the benefits of banking services against the aforesaid account. The complainant also using ATM/Debit Card issued by the OP bank against the aforesaid account. The complainant submitted that on 29.12.2013 an amount of Rs.53,500/- has been wrongly debited by the bank to the aforesaid account of the complainant. The complainant came to know about this fact on 4.2.2014 when he got the entry upto date on his bank passbook. The complainant immediately approached the branch manager of OP No.1 who told the complainant that as per their bank record this amount of Rs.53,500/- has been withdrawn by complainant by using ATM purchase. The complainant submitted that he did not make any such ATM transaction on 29.12.2013 nor he handed over his ATM Card nor disclosed the password to anyone. The complainant filed complaint to the OP No.1 dated 4.2.2014 Ex.C1 and he also filed complaint to the SSP Rural, Jalandhar dated 24.3.2014 Ex.C3. The complainant also submitted letter dated 28.3.2014 Ex.C4 to OP No.1. The complainant also served legal notice upon the Ops dated 13.5.2014 Ex.C8 through registered post and also filed application before Chief Grievance Officer of the OP Bank Ex.C9 and also to the banking Ombudsman Ex.C10 but neither police nor the banking Ombudsman nor the higher authorities of the bank have solved the problem of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
7. Whereas, the case of the OPs is that this amount of Rs.53,500/- has been rightly/legally debited to the account of the complainant on 29.12.2013 as the complainant swiped the ATM card and did the e-commerce transaction at point of sale. In this regard reply was also given by the OP No.1 to the complainant. The complaint of the complainant was duly entertained by the Ops and the complainant was given assurance that his complaint will be duly verified and the same was actually verified promptly by the OP bank. They sent the matter to the help desk of the bank and they received reply from help desk of the bank in which it was written that ATM holder swiped the ATM card on 29.12.2013 and did e-commerce transaction at point of sale and the transaction is successfully represented by acquirer bank. The complainant was also informed that the POS terminal owner is mobile store. The ATM card was in possession of the complainant and the pin-code was also known to the complainant. So, no other person except the complainant or the person on behalf of the complainant has used the ATM card for the aforesaid e-commerce transaction. OP bank specifically mentioned that no OTP (One time password) was issued by the bank to the complainant when e-commerce transaction is done by the ATM card holder at the point of sale on 29.12.2013. The reply received from the help desk, was supplied to the complainant immediately. The complainant himself admitted that he was making use of all beneficial services provided by the OP bank against the aforesaid account. So, he is not a layman rather he was conversant with the e-facilities provided by the bank. So from all these facts it is clear that the complainant or some person on behalf of the complainant having ATM card of the complaint with knowledge of secret pin-code, which could be only known to the complainant, has made the aforesaid e-commerce transaction at point of sale, a mobile store. As such, this amount i.e. Rs.53,500/- has been rightly debited to the account of the complainant as that e-transaction was successfully made. The learned counsel for the OPs submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant has account with the OP No.1 bank and complainant himself has admitted in para No.1 of his complaint that he has been using all the benefits of banking service against the aforesaid account. The complainant has also admitted that he has been using ATM/Debit Card issued by the OP bank against the aforesaid account. On 29.12.2013 an amount of Rs.53,500/- has been debited to the account of the complainant but the complainant filed complaint to the OP on 4.2.2014 Ex.C1 i.e. after a lapse of period of more than one month that the aforesaid amount of Rs.53,500/- has been wrongly debited to the account of the complainant in the OP No.1 bank. Complainant submitted that he came to know about this fact when he got entries updated in his bank passbook. It can not be believed that a sum of Rs.53,500/- have been debited to the account of the complainant on 29.12.2013 through e-commerce transaction by use of ATM card of the complainant and he kept mum for such a long period. The complainant submitted that he did not make any such ATM transaction on 29.12.2013. The OP on receipt of complaint Ex.C1 dated 4.2.2014 from complainant, referred the matter to help desk of the OP bank and they received reply from help desk in which it was written that ATM holder swiped ATM card on 29.12.2013 and did e-commerce transaction at point of sale and transaction is successfully represented by acquirer bank. The OP also told the complainant that POS i.e. point of sale terminal owner is mobile store. So, it is clear that some article from the mobile store has been purchased through e-commerce transaction by complainant or some person on behalf of the complainant to whom the complainant has handed over his ATM card and also supplied/disclosed secret pin code to that person. No e-commerce transaction can take place without swiping ATM card which was in possession of the complainant and without disclosing secret pin code number. That transaction was successful at POS (point of sale) and that e-commerce transaction can only becomes successful if ATM card of the complainant is used and secret pin code is disclosed by complainant or some person to whom complainant handed over the ATM card and also disclosed his secret pin code. The complainant lodged complaint with the police on 24.3.2014 but up till now no FIR has been registered by the police. Even the case of the complainant has not been entertained by Banking Ombudsman nor by Chief Grievance Officer of Central Bank of India because the fault is on the part of the complainant as to why he handed over the ATM card and disclosed the secret pin code number to any other person because no e-commerce transaction can be made successful without using ATM card which was in possession of the complainant and without using the secret pin code number which was only known to the complainant. The OP was, therefore, justified in holding that as the e-commerce transaction was successful and they have debited this amount to the account of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.
9. Resultantly, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh
04.05.2016 Member Member President
