3. The opposite party admitted that an amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand only) was withdrawn from the account of the complainant by using ATM card on 10.01.2014 from ATM 6965 SHLIP CHO KHARGHAR, Mumbai. The opposite party had already informed the public through various advertisements in different media not to disclose any personal financial details like ATM PIN number, ATM card number, banking ID, password etc. and not to respond to unsolicited mails. Therefore, the opposite party was not liable to compensate any loss sustained by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in this regard.
4. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked for the complainant. Exhibits B1 to B7 were marked for the opposite parties.
5. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to pay Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the complainant with interest. The District Commission also directed the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as costs. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.
6. The service of notice on the respondent is complete. However, the respondent has not turned up.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the records.
8. It is not disputed that an amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand only) was withdrawn by the fraudster from the account of the complainant on 10.01.2024 making use of the details furnished by the complainant himself.
9. Exhibit B7 is the front page of the online platform, which is extracted as hereunder:-
“NEVER respond to any popup, email, SMS or phone call, no matter how appealing or official looking, seeking your personal information such as username, password(s), mobile number, ATM card details etc.
Such communications are sent or created by fraudsters to trick you into parting with your credentials.
Do not use Internet Banking if your computer is not free of malware (Viruses, Trojans etc).”
10. It is clear from the averments in the complaint and the evidence of PW1 that the complainant had been using the internet facility even prior to the incident in this case. The evidence of PW1 is that PW1 had been using ATM facility for 6 to 7 years prior to his examination before the District Commission. From the evidence of PW1 coupled with the contentions in the complaint, it can be safely inferred that the complainant was aware that he should not disclose the matters relating to his account, particularly the PIN number, to any person. However, in this case, the complainant himself had provided all details including the PIN number to the fraudster and utilising the details furnished by the complainant, the amount was withdrawn. In the said circumstances, we are not in a position to find any deficiency in service on the part of the bank in this regard.
11. After having furnished all details to the fraudster, the complainant cannot be permitted to contend that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that the finding of the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party cannot be sustained and consequently we set aside the same.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed, order in C.C.No.117/2014 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant, on proper acknowledgement.
