Delhi

North East

CC/283/2014

Manya Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

04 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 283/2014

 

CORAM:        Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Sharma

Hon’ble Member Sh. Nishat Ahmad Alvi

                        Hon’ble Member Ms. Manju Bala Sharma

 

In the matter of:

 

Manya Goel

(Previously called Swati Gupta)

House No.87, Pocket D-12,

Sector-8, Rohini,

New Delhi-110085                                                                                        Complainant                                       

           

Versus

 

1.        Indian Bank

Branch Hardev Puri

B-125, Hardev Puri,

Delhi-110093

 

2.        Punjab National Bank

Branch Khari Baoli,

Gali Batashan, Khari Baoili,

Delhi-110006                                                                              Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                      DATE OF INSTITUTION: 26-07-2014

                                                                                      DATE OF DECISION     :  04 -02-2016

Order

N.K. Sharma, President :-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Manju Bala Sharma, Member :-

 

 

1. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is having saving account No.98376846-2 with OP1 in her previous name Swati Gupta as she got married on 18.01.2013 and her name was changed to Manya Goel with OP1 and ATM Card No.5044339983045545318 was also issued to her and on 23.08.2012 while using the said ATM card in two ATM machines of PNB, Khari Baoli (OP No.2) located in the same premises, Rs.10,000/- each were deducted from her account without giving the withdrawal command.   An application with a request for refund of money of Rs.20,000/- was given by the complainant to OP1 on 24.08.2012 but the same was rejected on 31.08.2012 on the ground of withdrawal was successful.  On 06.09.2012 the complainant requested for providing CCTV footage of said ATM transaction and reason for the problem of working of ATM machines to OP1 but the same was not made available to complainant.  A reminder to this effect was also given on 28.9.2012.  The complainant also approached to Banking Ombudsman with regard to complaint made to OP1 and its  reply followed by detailed order dated 04.09.2013 the complainant was informed that disputed transactions require consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and proceedings before Banking Ombudsman are not appropriate for adjudication.  Pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed for direction to the OPs to refund Rs.20,000/- with 18% interest, pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards physical and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. In response to the notice issued to both the OPs Mr. Pawan Kumar Batta appeared on behalf of OP1 and filed a letter seeking account number and full details of the complainant and he was supplied with the copy of the complaint but neither anybody appeared on behalf of OP1 nor any reply was filed.  On 30.09.2014 Sh. Gurjeet Singh, Senior Manager of OP No.2 appeared and filed JP log and Switch Report and stated at bar that OP2 does not want to file any reply.
3. Complainant has filed an affidavit of evidence in support of her complaint and exhibited the photocopies of documents i.e. ATM card, Annexure AI, application for refund of Rs.20,000/- dated 24.08.2012 Annexure AII, request for providing CCTV footage to OP1 Annexure AIV and reminder for providing CCTV footage Annexure AV.  The complainant has also made a complaint vide complaint No.20121304004448 to the office of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 against OP1 bank marked as Annexure AVI and in its reply dated 25.12.2012 which dealt with the matter and stated in its letter that it was felt that a decision on the disputed transaction(s) requires consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and the proceedings before the Banking Ombudsman are not appropriate for adjudication of such a complaint.  Accordingly, the case has been closed under clause 13(c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.  However, both the OPs neither chose to appear nor filed reply and affidavit in evidence except JP Log and Switch Report filed by OP2.
4. We have heard the complainant and gone through the record.   Relevant portion of an application made by the complainant to OP1 requesting for providing CCTV footage in respect of two ATM transactions in question (Annexure AIV) reads as under :-

“.............while using the said ATM card by my father in two ATM machines of PNB, Khari Baoli on 23.08.2012 between 11.45 AM – 12 Noon my account balance has been deducted by Rs.10,000/- in each machine irrespective of any withdrawal command given by my father in both the ATM machines”.

5. The brochure of the debit/credit card of every bank contains instruction to be invariably followed by the users of the same and with the heading “important information” is as under :-

“Your card is only for your use; Do not reveal your 4 digit PIN (Personal Identification Number) to anybody or leave your PIN number accessible to anyone else

You can change your PIN at any of the networked ATMs of Bank

Card holder must change his/her PIN frequently for safety reason”.

6. The complainant has nowhere stated in her complaint that her father has used the ATM card for the two ATM transactions but in her application for providing CCTV footage she has clearly mentioned that it was her father who went to OP2 bank for the said transaction.  As is clear from the guidelines as to who is authorised to use the ATM card the complainant in the case has herself committed default by giving the ATM card and disclosing its PIN number to her father.  A person cannot take benefit of his/her own wrong.
7. Though complainant has committed an error by handing over the ATM card and disclosing its PIN number to her father yet the OPs cannot be absolved of their burden to appear and contest the claim of the complainant.  In this case, the OP1 appeared only on 05.09.2014 when he filed a letter asking for the account number and details of the complainant and he was supplied with the copy of the complaint and OP1 did not care to appear and file reply and evidence in the matter.  Similar is the case of OP2 when Sh. Gurjeet Singh, Senior Manager appeared on 05.09.2014 when he was supplied with the copy of complaint to file its reply and on 30.09.2014 he appeared and filed copy of JP log and Switch Report and made a statement that it does not want to file reply as if it has absolved of the responsibility of proving the documents filed on record.
8. In view of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove its case.  The complaint is not maintainable for the reason that complainant has failed to maintain the confidentiality of the PIN of ATM card and did not comply with the pre-condition of using the ATM card as she has handed over the same and disclosed the PIN number to her father but she has run from pillar to post for getting and the amount of Rs.20,000/- credited/transferred to her account which was debited on account of two ATM transactions in question.  Hence holding the OPs responsible jointly and severally for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant, the OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
9. The above order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  In case the same is not complied with interest @ 9% per annum shall be given on the amount awarded to the complainant from the date of order till realisation.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.  
11. File be consigned to record room.
12. Announced on 04.02.2016.

 

 

( N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member