JUDGMENT

            The complainant has filed this complaint u/sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 against the OP alleging deficiency in service in not maintaining the secrecy of the ATM Card details of the Savings account of the complainant. Hence, prays for the deduction of Rs.8,000/-  from Savings Account along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards physical and mental agony and Rs.30,000/- for unfair trade practice and Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- for miscellaneous and litigation expenses.

             Brief averments of the Complaint are;

            2.  That the complainant had a Savings Account in the OP Bank with Account No.62051551605. After opening a Savings Account in the bank, the complainant had availed ATM facility of to his account from the bank. On dated: 16.11.2015 at evening 5 PM, the complainant received a call from mobile No.7250734470 to his mobile No.9886549047. The person on a call introduced himself as bank officer and asked the details of the ATM Card. Later on he asked the secret PIN of the ATM. Then the complainant got the message of withdrawal of the amount from his Savings Account. While talking through the phone after the message was given to the complainant, he immediately cut down the phone call. Then the complainant came to known that Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,000/- were deducted from the Savings Account of the complainant.  

            3.         The complainant further alleged that after coming to know the deductions of the amount of Rs.12,000/- he immediately informed the bank about the withdrawal of the amount and locked his account. The complainant went and gave complaint to the OP-Bank and also to the police station regarding the deduction of money from his ATM. The complaint No. is 257/2015. After this,  the complainant’s Account was credited back with Rs.1,500/-, Rs.2,500/- in total Rs.4,000/- was deposited in his account and Rs.8,000/- was not deposited.

            4.         The complainant further alleged that the bank authorities give clear instructions to the customer that they have to maintain the secrecy of the details of the Account. Then how can the others came to know the details of the ATM Card of the complainant. So far, this reason the OP Bank has committed deficiency in service.

            5.         The complainant further alleged that the complainant had issued a legal notice through their advocate to the OP-Bank regarding this on 10.12.2015 and the said notice is served on him. But, the OP did not give reply to the said notice. Hence, filed this complaint praying for replying the deduction amount of Rs.8,000/- from his Savings Account along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards physical and mental agony and Rs.30,000/- for unfair trade practice and Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- for litigation and miscellaneous expenses as prayed above.

            6.         The Forum after admitting the complaint, a notice was issued by the Forum to the OP Bank and the said notice is served upon the OP Bank. The OP Bank has failed to appear before the Forum on the date of appearance and hence was placed as exparte and the case was posted for complainant’s evidence.

7.         On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points that arise for our consideration are:

POINTS

1.  Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service in not maintaining the secrecy of the ATM Card details of the Savings Account of the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought for?

3. What order?

     8.      To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW-1 and he has got marked the documents as per Ex. A1 to Ex. A-6 and closed their side of evidence.

    9.           Heard the arguments of the complainant’s counsel and perused the records.

10.  Our findings on the above points are as under;

Point No. 1 :  In Negative,

Point No. 2 :  In Negative

Point No. 3:   As per final Order for the following.

REASONS

11.  POINT No. 1and 2:  As these issues are interconnected each other, hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, evidence documents and arguments.

            12.  On perusal of the pleadings, evidence coupled with the documents of respective parties on record.  It is the case of the complainant alleging deficiency in service in not maintaining the secrecy of the ATM Card details of the Savings Account of the complainant.

13.       To prove the case of the complainant, the PW-1 has reiterated the complainant averments in his examination in Chief and in support of his cases he has produced the Bank Statement of his Account which has been marked as EX A-1. The Bank Statement clearly reveals that on 16.11.2015 an amount of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,500/-, Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,000/- has been deducted. The complainant himself as admitted in his complaint that the complainant received a call from mobile No.7250734470 to his mobile No.9886549047. The person who called him on his phone asked the details of the ATM Card and when the details were given he told that he was the bank officer from the bank calling him and then he asked the details of the complainant’s ATM Card. Inspite of knowing that and after warning from the bank not to disclose the PIN Details to any unknown person. The complainant has given him the secret PIN details on the phone without enquiring about him. Here it shows the negligence of the complainant, that while issuing the PIN, the details will not be known even to the bank authorities. It will be known only to the customer. How can he believe the unknown person call and give the secret PIN details to that unknown person even after warning the customer from such type of fraud by the banks. It clearly shows the negligence of the complainant. Here, the complainant to prove that the bank officers only had called him, he did not produced any other cogent and acceptable evidence except putting suggestion to that the details was given by the bank authorities.

14.       Further, it is true that on perusal of EX A1 an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.2,500/- has been refunded There is no any specific mentioning about that who has refunded the amount in his account. Further, it is true that they have not produced any of the record to show that the OP-Bank authorities are responsible for disclosing his secret PIN to the third person. This itself clearly goes to show that the said complainant has not produced any relevant documents to show that the OP-Bank authorities are responsible in disclosing the account ATM details, believing the Version with respect to this is not justifiable one.

15.       During the course of his arguments, counsel for the complainant has furnished a decision in III (2015) CPJ 245 (NC) in Vidyawati V/s State Bank of India and others wherein it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that ATM fraudulent withdrawal deficiency in service. But, here in this case due to technical fault in the ATM, the amount of Rs.20,000/- were evoneously withdrawn through ATM installed, but in this case there was no technical fault in the ATM Machine, but here the third person has cheated the complainant by making a call introducing himself as the bank officer asked him the secret PIN. The complainant without enquires about him gave him the secret PIN on phone call. This amount has been withdrawn due to the negligence of the complainant by giving the secret PIN details. Hence, it is not applicable to the case in hand.

16.       In view of the discussion here in above, the documents now furnished EX A-2 to EX A6 will no way help the complainant to prove that the OP-Bank has not maintained the secret and has disclosed his Account details to the third person. After considering these documents, we are unable to change the view, which we have earlier taken.

17.       Therefore, the contention which has been taken by the complainant is vague one and therefore the said complaint set-up by the complainant is not justifiable one. On perusal of EX A2 to EX A6 only reveals the procedure followed by the complainant after he has cheated by third person. So also on perusal of the EX A3, a complaint given to the police station by the complainant, it clearly reveals that the complainant has not mentioned the bank authorities have given his details, but he has given a formal complaint that some miscreants have cheated him. This itself clearly goes to show that the said OP-Bank is nowhere involved in disclosing the ATM details.    

18.       On the contrary as per the oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on part of OP Bank in disclosing the secret ATM Card details to the third person and the said facts has been clearly discloses in EX A-1, EX A-2 and EX A-3. Hence, in the light of above observation, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on part of the OP-Bank in disclosing the secret ATM Card details to the third person. Hence, in the light of above observations, we constrained to hold point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.

19.  POINT No. 3 :- In view of above discussion and findings we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

2. Send the free copies of this order to both parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, typescript, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Fora on 22^nd day of March, 2016.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.