CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

    Case No.131/2016

MOHD. HIFZUL AMIN

S/O SH. TAUSIF AHMED,

R/O H-73/2, UMAR MASJID,

ABUL FAZAL ENCLAVE, JAMIA NAGAR,

OKHLA, NEW DELHI - 110025…..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

1. THE MANAGER

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

RAILWAY ROAD, SIKANDRABAD,

DISTT. BULANDSHAHAR, U.P. – 203205

(M) NO. 9536041000

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER

STATE BANK OF INDIA

LOCAL HEAD OFFICE:-

11, SANSAD MARG,

NEW DELHI – 110001

(PH. NO. 011-23345757).…..RESPONDENTS

Date of Institution-25.04.2016

Date of Order-12.05.2023

  O R D E R         

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1. The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OP in providing bank services.

2. The brief facts as stated in complaint are that the complainant has a saving bank account bearing No.10950960408 with OP. On 20.03.2016, the complainant went to the SBI ATM, Abul Fazal, Delhi for withdrawal of Rs.500/-. He received a message on ATM Screen: Your card is blocked please contact to your home branch. The complainant thereafter pushed the cancel button and went to a nearby Canara Bank ATM. The complainant was able to get Rs.500/- from the said ATM. The ATM receipt showed that the deposit in the account of the complainant was Rs.16521/- before withdrawal and Rs.16021/- after withdrawal. On 22.03.2016 the complainant received Rs.15,000/- from his relative.

3. On 27.03.2016 the complainant at about 2:11 p.m. received two messages as follows:-

(i)“Rs.20,000/- WITHDRAWN AT SBG ATM HFBC000727270, K-73A, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI, FROM A/c No. XXXX0408 ON 27.03.2016, TXN#1790, AVL. BAL. IS RS. 11,021.69/-.”

(ii) “Rs.10,000/- WITHDRAWN AT SBG ATM HFBC000727270, K-73A, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI, FROM A/c No. XXXX0408 ON 27.03.2016, TXN#1790, AVL. BAL. IS RS. 1,021.69/-.”

4. The complainant immediately contacted OP’s bank customer care about this unauthorized withdrawal. He was told to approach his home branch which was not possible as it was Sunday and the bank was closed. He then made a request for blocking the card. The card was blocked and he received the following message: “AS PER YOUR REQUEST RECEIVED AT CONTACT CENTRE, CARD NO. ENDING WITH XXXX2239 IS BLOCKED TICKET NO. 81627031428028783. The complainant checked his online account and found that the balance amount was Rs.1021.69/- and Rs.30,000/- was withdrawn from Jamia Nagar, Delhi. He lodged a complainant with Police station, Jamia Nagar on 27.03.2016.  

5. The sister of the complainant visited OP bank on 28.03.2016 and filled a complaint form. She was informed that the investigation will be completed in 8-10 days. On 06.04.2016, the complainant received a message that his complaint was closed after resolution. The complainant prays for return of Rs.30,000/- along with interest.

6. OP in its reply submits that the complainant by using ATM Card No.6220180062400052239 from bank account no.10950960408 has withdrawn Rs.20,000/- on 27.03.2016 at 14:11 vide transaction no. 1790 from ATM I.D. no. HFBC000727270 (herein after to be referred as ATM) and thereafter at 14:13 from same ATM withdrawn Rs.10,000/- vide transaction no. 1792. OP further submits that as per E- Journal Log, transaction no. 1790 and 1792 were successful and complainant has withdrawn the amount by two different transactions.  It is alleged that as PIN (Personal Identification Number) was known to complainant and the ATM card was in possession of the complainant, the bank is not liable for any unauthorized use of card.

7. OP submits that investigation was carried out and the complaints were closed after resolution on 06.04.2016. The complainant was requested to provide certain documents vide email dated 02.06.2016 but he did not provide those documents. OP prays for dismissal of the present complaint.

8. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by OP repeating the averments made in the complaint.
9. The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-

1. A copy of the SMS received are exhibited as Exhibit-1, Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3.
2. A copy of the Police Complaint is exhibited as Exhibit-4.
3. A copy of the complaint to the Branch Manager is exhibited as Exhibit-5.
4. A copy of both the SMS are exhibited as Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-7.
5. A copy of the account statement showing all the transactions is exhibited as Exhibit-8.

10. The OP has filed its evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-

1. Copy of EJ Log generated by ATM ID No. HFBC000727270 is exhibited as Exhibit OPW- 1/1.
2. Copy of consolidated transactions for 27.03.2016 is exhibited as Exhibit OPW -1/2.
3. ATM transaction of Rs.20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- vide transaction no. 1790 and 1792 respectively is exhibited as Exhibit OPW-1/3.
4. Certified copy of statement of account of complainant is exhibited as Exhibit OPW-1/4.
5. Copy of email dated 02.06.2016 is exhibited as Exhibit OPW-1/5.

11. The Commission has considered the pleadings of the parties and the material on the record. It is admitted by both the parties that the complainant had an ATM card issued by OP. It is also admitted that Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn on 27.03.2016 at 14: 11 and 14:13 respectively at Jamia Nagar ATM of OP on the card number  issued to the complainant. It is further admitted that the card of the complainant was blocked on 27.03.2016 at the request of the complainant. Both the parties further admit that OP’s manager asked the complainant to fill a complaint form and the complaint was closed on 06.04.2016.
12. The Commission have perused the JP Log. The transaction details to JP Log are as follows:-

1. Txn. No.1788

A/c No. 01xxxxxxxxx055 Date: 03.27.2016 Timing: 14:09.

2. Txn. No.1789

A/c No. 00000010950960408 Date: 03.27.2016 Timing: 14:10.

3. Txn. No.1790

A/c No. 00000010950960408 Date: 03.27.2016 Timing: 14:12.

4. Txn. No.1791

A/c No. 00xxxxxxxxx579 Date: 03.27.2016 Timing: 14:13.

5. Txn. No.1792

A/c No. 00000010950960408 Date: 03.27.2016 Timing: 14:14.

6. Txn. No.1793

Sorry unable to process inconvenience is regretted.

Date: 03.27.2016 Timing: 14:14.

7. Txn. No. 1794

A/c No. 00xxxxxxxxx579

13.  Careful scrutiny of transaction reveals that transaction No. 1788 and 1789 took place at 14:09 and 14:10. The transaction No. 1790 shows that the withdrawal from complainant’s account took place at 14:12. The transaction No. 1791 shows that withdrawal was for another account at 14:13. The transaction No. 1792 shows that the withdrawal was again from the complainant’s account at 14:14. The transaction No. 1793 shows that the transaction took place at 14:14 and the withdrawal was not possible.
14. The sequence of event shows that the complainant made a withdrawal at 14:12, a second person made a withdrawal at 14:13, the complainant again made another withdrawal at 14:14, and a third person tried to make another withdrawal at 14:14 which was not processed.

15.  It can be inferred that in the two minutes which took the complainant to make two withdrawals, a third person had made a withdrawal between that time and the fourth person tried to make a withdrawal at the same time which is not possible by any stretch of imagination.

16. OP has not given full details of subsequent transaction No. 1794. As per the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) circular NPCI/2012/13/NFS/2737 dated 26.03.2013, in case of the disputed transaction, the acquirer bank must provide three transactions before and three transactions after the ‘Disputed transaction’ in the JP/EJ ATM logs. In the present case neither three transaction prior nor three transaction post, the disputed transaction has been provided.

17. OP bank received this complaint and scrutinized the JP log OP could have easily confirmed the sequence of event from CCTV footage. In fact, the email dated 05.04.2016 filed by OP reveals that OP had requested for EJ/JP log and DVSS and CCTV recording. However, there is no whisper of CCTV record mentioned in the reply filed by OP.

18. Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 1020/2014, decided on 01.03.2023, titled as ‘State Bank of India Vs. Ms. Madhu Chawla’ held that non supply of copy of CCTV to the complainant shall amount to deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Also, in FA No. 59/2017 titled as “ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Ms. Nalini Sirohi & Anr.” decided on 13.10.2022, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that:

13.We are of the view that the Appellant has failed to discharge its duty as the concerned official of the Appellant failed to provide any of the above-mentioned report or CCTV footage of the concerned ATM to the Respondent No.1 and even failed to file any evidence relating to the same before the District Commission as well as before this Commission to prove that money had been collected by the respondent No.1 on the subject day.

19. Clarification regarding a different transaction taking place at the same time as the disputed transaction has not been provided by OP in spite of a detailed investigation. In contravention to circular issued by National Payments Corporate of India, the JP/ EJ Logs submitted by OP does not furnish three prior and post transaction before and after disputed transactions.

20. The factum of withdrawal of cash by complainant or any third person would have been clear if CCTV footage was examined. The OP bank has decided to sit on CCTV without any explanation. OP closed the complainant on these transactions on 06.04.2016 while the investigation was still under process as evident from the demand of documents vide email dated 24.05.2016.

21. OP’s action demonstrate that the complaint was not closed. Among the documents requested were the ID proof of all the family members, brief history regarding occupation/ residence of complainant and his family members. We are unable to understand as to why the occupation, ID and residence of family members are required for the disputed transaction.

22. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission finds OPs guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and following directions are passed:-

1. OP is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- with interest @7% from the date of withdrawal till realization.
2. OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation for the mental agony and the discomfort caused due to deficiency in service inclusive of litigation charges.

23.  This order be complied with within 90 days from the date of the order.  This entire amount is payable to the complainant within a period of 90 days from the date of order failing which the entire amount will further carry an interest @9% per annum till it is paid to the complainant.
24. File be consigned to record room.