Date of Filing: 22-12-2018

                                                                           Date of Order: 16 -1-2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

   HON’BLE  Sri  P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Sri  K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,   MEMBER

HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM. ,(PGD (ADR)  MEMBER

Thursday, the   16^th day of January, 2020

C.C.No.489 /2018

Between

Gulam Sarvar,

S/o.Gulam Mohiuddin,

Aged about 77 years, 8-1-40/1/A,

Samta Colony,

Tolichowki, Hyderabad – 500 008,

Telangana

Cell No.99597345546                                                  ……Complainant

And

Bank Manager,

Vijayanagar Colony Branch

Indian Overseas  Bank, 18-3-761/7/2,

Vijayanagar Colony,

Hyderabad – 500 057, Telangana                                     ….Opposite Party

Counsel for the complainant      :  Party in person

Counsel for the opposite Party   :  Mr.G.Ramesh Babu

O R D E R

(By Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,  MEMBER on behalf of the bench)

            This complaint has  been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 alleging that there is a negligence and  deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua taking place of fraudulent transactions in the  complainant’s IOB account thereby praying this Forum to direct the opposite party to pay back to the complainant  Rs.71,702.82 together with interest @ 18% P.A apart from  payment of amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation. 

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that: Five (5) fraudulent transactions, from USA, without  his knowledge, by using his debit card and its credentials took place on five different dates in the month of April, 2018, in his SB account No.10701000006179 being maintained by IOB, Vidyanagar Branch, Hyderabad whereby a total amount of Rs. 71,702.82/- was debited on different dates.  Despite his personal visits  to the said branch of the bank nothing was stated to have been  done.  Hence this complaint  with a prayer to direct the opposite party for grant of reliefs as stated supra. 
2. The opposite party filed written version admitting the fact of  maintaining the above account of the complainant, issuance of ATM card but resisted the allegations made in the complaint.  Opposite party further  denied the  negligence and deficiency in service on their part  in view of the keeping ATM card  with the complainant  who only knows  its credentials.  Without using the ATM card and credentials  it was impossible  for carrying out the alleged transactions.  Opposite  party stated that  a  criminal case was lodged with the police, who have been investigating  the same and which is under process.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3. During the course of enquiry,  in order to  substantiate  his case, the complainant  filed his affidavit evidence  and produced documents Exhibits A1 to A5 and the opposite party got filed its written version, affidavit evidence and produced documents  as B1 to B3.  Written arguments have also been filed by both the complainant and opposite party. 

    The  points now emerge for consideration are:        

1. Whether the  complainant could prove  his case of taking place of alleged fraudulent  transactions without his knowledge, by producing cogent  evidence  ?
2. Whether any liability  can be fastened to opposite party for negligence or deficiency in service  on its part?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for in the complaint ? if so,  to what relief?

Having heard the learned counsel  appearing for the complainant  and the opposite  party; and after perusing the documents made available on record we opine that;-

Point No.1:  The complainant on coming  to know  the occurrence  of alleged fraudulent transactions  in his above account and on  making umpteen visits and contacting the bank officials  concerned, he did not handover his ATM card  to them rather saying that the said transactions were held from USA  on different dates in the month of April 2018.  The opposite party further  stated that  without  using ATM card and its credentials,  it would be highly impossible  to do any transaction. Had the complainant  returned his ATM card to the branch at the time of his  visit, his allegation  of  occurrence of fraudulent transactions  from USA would have been  fortified.  Under the circumstances, it can be  safely concluded that the complainant  failed to prove  his case.   As such the answer to this point is given against the complainant but infavour of the opposite party. 

Point No.2:  In view of the  discussion held in  point No.1 no liability  can be fastened  to the opposite  party in so far as negligence  or deficiency in service  is concerned.  Hence answer to this point is given against the complainant but  in favour of the  opposite party. 

Point No.3:  In view of the  discussion held in point No.1&2 the complainant is not entitled  to any relief as prayed  for in the complaint.  Thus the  answer to this point is also given   infavour of the opposite  party but against the complainant. 

         In the result and in the light of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed and no order as to costs. 

                       Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced  by us on this the  16^th   day of  January, 2020.

LADYMEMBER                   MALEMEMBER                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1- copy of application dated 7-5-2018

Ex.A2- copy of application  dated 14-5-2018

Ex.A3-copy of pass book

Ex.A4-copy of SMS alert

Ex.A5- copy of Bank statement

Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party  

Ex.B1- Notice dated 14/06/2018

Ex.B2- reply dated 19/06/2018

Ex.B3- Transaction enquiry and account  statement

LADYMEMBER                   MALEMEMBER                             PRESIDENT