STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
(Appeal No. 112 of 2017)
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Customer Service Point, Mathiya Hardo, P.O- Nechua Jalalpur, Police Station- Kuchaikote, District- Gopalganj …..Appellant
VERSUS
Hare Shyam Prasad, Son of Sighasan Prasad, Resident of Village- Petbhariya, P.O Nechua Jalalpur, Police Station- Kuchaikote, District- Gopalganj ….. Respondent
BEFORE:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President,
Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member
Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member
ORDER
Date: 25.07.2023
Per: Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member
1. Present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/opposite party for setting aside the order/judgment dated 29.11.2016 passed in complaint case no. 21/2015 by District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj, whereby and whereunder it has been directed to appellant/opposite party to pay Rs. 10,6000/- for the awarded amount, Rs. 5000/- for mental agony and Rs. 3000/- for litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order failing which 7% interest p.a will be payable.
2. The facts of this case as briefly stated is that the complainant/respondent opened an account bearing account No. 33100859929 in the State Bank of India, customer service Point, Mathiya Hardo, Nechua Jalalpur, District Gopalganj which is connected with Sasamusa, State Bank of India, and on the date of opening of account he deposited Rs. 5,000/- and thereafter he used to deposit and withdraw money. The allegation of complainant was that on 01.09.2014 Rs. 10,000/- and on 12.09.2014 Rs. 6000/- was withdrawn from the said account and transferred it to the other account of Gaya District bearing account no. 31003329293 which belongs to SAVE ( Society for Advancement of village).
3. On 11.12.2014 The complainant submitted an application to the Branch Manager, S.B.I (parent branch) along with a request to enquire into the matter and got credited the said amount in his account but no action was taken thereafter complainant sent a legal notice to appellant the Branch Manager, State Bank of India KIOSK BANKING, customer service Point Mathiya Hardo, Nechua, Jalalpur on 02.02.2015 but Branch Manager did not take any action on the same. Ultimately the complainant filed case no. 21 of 2015 for redressal his grievances, compensation for physical harassment,and mental agony. Notice was issued against the opposite party and written statement was also filed by the opposite party/respondent. Opposite party/Appellant submitted that Customer can operate his account by two modes only one by ATM Card and 2nd by finger based biometric System. The opposite party has produced one witness and filed documents which were exhibited as exhibit A and exhibit B. The opposite party contended that the said amount was withdrawn by the cyber criminal throughan ATM Card along with separate Pin Code hence there is no deficiency in service committed by the Bank itself. The facility of ATM is used to giveits customers with a direction to maintain proper care and caution but complainant did not take proper care and caution as a result of which the said withdrawal was made by the cyber criminal. No any fault was committed by the Bank concerned in this matter.
4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the material available on records the District Consumer Forum found that the complainant filed a documents with respect to withdrawal of Rs. 10000/- on 01.09.2014 and Rs. 600/- on 12.09.2014 which was exhibited as exhibit 2 and a petition filed on 11.12.2014 with respect to enquire into and ascertain fault of this withdrawal to the Branch Manager, SBI concern which was exhibited as Exhibit- 1. Whether the said amount was withdrawn by ATM or transferred by ATM was not shown in the statement issued by the Bank nor any evidence was given by the opposite party which can corroborate that the complainant has withdraw the amount himself. Hence the statement of complainant that the said amount was withdrawn by ATM indicates wrong.
5. The Bank is the custodian of the money of its account holder if any mishappening is caused in the account of the account holder, the responsibility of Bank is to enquire into the matter and take care and proper steps accordingly.
6. `The opposite party has not investigated the matter upon the petition dated 11.12.2014 (exhibit-1)of the complainant submitted to him as to how transfer or withdrawn was made and credited in the account of “Society for advancement of village” in Gaya Branch.
7. The complainant is the consumer of the opposite party hence responsibility of enquiry, probing and refunding the said amount certainly depends upon opposite party which is clearly shows deficiency in service committed by opposite party.
8. Therefore the District Forum/Commission has passed the aforesaid impugned order against the opposite party.
9. Having aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order the opposite party/appellant has filed this appeal in the State Consumer Commission for set aside the impugned order. The same stand was taken by the appellant in this appeal as was taken in the complaint case in his favour and submitted that no transaction of money was being done at customer service point of appellant rather the said transaction have been done by the complainant himself by finger withdrawal mode through D.A.V Rural Bank as such the complainant is solely responsible for finger mode withdrawal at DAV Rural Bank and transferred the same to SAVE’s A/C.The appellant is not responsible for that at all, hence there is no deficiency in service of the State Bank of India, KIOSK BANKING customer service point, Mathiya Hardo (appellant).The customer service point as well as the Branch Manager cannot be held responsible for careless committed by the complainant.
10. The respondent/complainant reiterated the same and assailed that upon the application given by the complainant the appellant did not care and inquire into the matter and even after the legal notice the appellant did not pay attention on the same. It is further submitted that the bank is the custodian of the money of its account holder if any mishappening is caused in the account of the account holder then the bank is under obligation to enquire into the matter and take stern legal action against those responsible person/authority. Hence the bank has failed to discharge its obligation and duty and liable to pay the compensation and refund the amount withdrawn. Hence, there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Forum/Commission and appeal is liable to be dismissed accordingly.
12. Having heard both the parties and perused the materialsavailable on records, we found that the complainant was bonafide customer of the opposite party/appellant as such the appellant is under obligation to take proper care and caution and to provide safe and secure services to their consumer for ensuring safe debit and credit inthe complainant account so that fraudulently or mistakenly the amount might not be withdrawn by the miscreant or fraud. It is the sole duty and responsibility of the appellant bank to ensure safety and security of the account. If there was a fraudulent and mistaken withdrawal happened then it should be investigated and enquired into thoroughly to ensure nabbing the culprit and refunding the amount withdrawn from the concerned account of the complainant/Respondent. Hence the appellant has miserably failed to discharge its duties and responsibilities,therefore it is clear cut proved case of deficiency in service committed by the appellant.
13. Therefore, there is no infirmity, irregularity and illegality in the order of District Consumer Commission, inviting no interference in this order by the State Commission and accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed as to no cost.
14. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission.
15. Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.
Md. Shamim Akhtar Ram Prawesh Das Sanjay Kumar, J Member Member President
Agam
