IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /63/2014.
Date of Filing: 05.06.2014. Date of Final Order: 08.10.2015.
Complainant: Santosh Dutta, 132/E, Pilkhana Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Manager, Axis Bank, 3/20, K.K. Banerjee Road, Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
Present:
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.
Brief fact of the complainant’s case No.63/2014 u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 is that the complainant is a bona fide customer of the Op Bank with a Savings Bank Account being No. 163010100005166 along with ATM facility. On 31.03.2014 the complainant received one phone call from one person who introduced himself as personnel of Op Bank of Mumbai Office and confirmed the details of the complainant’s account. But after that at 10:12:08 AM on SMS came to the complainant that the sum of Rs.30, 005.62 has been debited from his account. At 11:10:15 AM the complainant met with his Bank and intimated the matter as well as requested to lock his account transactions. The OP Bank Personnel assured him regarding security and closing of transaction of his account. The complainant lodged G.D to the Police Station. But on 01.04.2014 at 12:17:44 he received SMS, which shows that again Rs.25, 005.62 and Rs.4,005.62 have been debited from his account. Then the complainant again lodged complaint to the police and informed the matter to Higher Authority of the OP Bank. But OP rejected the complainant’s claim and responsibility of the incident was given to the complainant. According to the complainant, this act of the OP is an example of deficiency in service on the part of the Op Bank. So, the complainant was bound to come to this Forum for proper redress.
On the other hand, the OP Bank entered into this case by filing written version, where he denied all the material allegations raised by the complainant. Rather, OP stated that the complainant himself is responsible for this fraudulence by giving details of his account along with OTAC, over phone to an unknown person. The OP also stated that it is true that the debit card was permanently blocked by the OP on the basis of the complainant’s request. But the account was not blocked as because the complainant never asked for that. So, the OP had no deficiency of service and for that he prayed for dismissal of the case.
The only point for consideration of this case is that whether the OP is liable for deficiency of service or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not.
Decision with reasons.
It is very pertinent to mention that the complainant submitted some documents in support of his case. The OP also filed a few documents to avert the allegation.
Perused all the documents on the record, we observed that the complainant received on SMS at 10:12:08 AM on 31.03.2014 that a sum of Rs.30,005.62 has been debited from his account, which was happened just after a telephonic conversation with an unknown person regarding his A/C details. The complainant rushed to the Bank at 11.10:15 AM and informed the matter with a request to lock the A/C as well as he filed a G.D. at the Police Station. The Bank personnel assured him regarding locking of his A/c. All these are admitted position of the case, regarding which our considered view is that complainant made mistake by giving details of the A/c , as a result he lose a sum of Rs.30,005.62 from his A/C . So, the complainant is responsible for that debit of Rs.30,005.62.
But on 01.04.2014 at 12.17:44 he received another SMS that again a sum of Rs.30, 000(Rs.25, 005.62 + Rs.5, 000.00) has been debited from his same A/C. The question arises that when OP Bank assured of locking of A/C , then how the second unauthorized withdrawal is possible. The OP argued that the complainant disclosed the details of the A/C including OTAC number. So, fraudulent is happened. Side by side the complainant’s opinion was that when the OP was intimated the matter and requested to close/lock the A/C and the OP also assured of locking his A/C. So, second time unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.30, 000/- is only due to gross negligence /deficiency of service of the OP. The OP Bank is the sole responsible for security and protection of the money of his customers. But in that case, the OP Bank tried to transfer the responsibility to the complainant by taking plea that the complainant did not ask for locking the A/C and Bank already locked the Debit card permanently. Whereas the Bank is protector as well as well concerned regarding that type of fraudulent, so they know better steps to stop that type of unauthorized withdrawal, especially after receiving intimation and request of locking of A/c by the complainant. So, our opinion regarding the second unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.30, 000/- is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the OP and for that OP has to pay back the amount to the complainant.
On the basis of above discussions and available material in the record, we concluded that the case is partly allowed, as because, the OP is not responsible for the first withdrawal of Rs.30, 005.62, but for the second withdrawal of Rs.30, 000/- the OP is guilty of deficiency in service, so the OP has to pay that amount .
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 63/2014 be and the same is hereby partly allowed with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-
The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.30, 000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of this order along with the litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- , failing which the OP has to pay @Rs.50/- as fine per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the ‘Consumer Legal Aid Account’.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
