Delhi

New Delhi

CC/100/2018

Mukesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

14 Sep 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.1OO/2018

 

Mukesh Kumar Gupta

S/o Sh. Rattan Lal,

R/o C-5/F-1,

Prasanna Apartments,

Bhama Shah Marg,

New Ishwar Colony,

Delhi-110009.

….Complainant

 

                                Vs.

 

The Manager,

State Bank of India,

B-37-38, Connaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001.

Opposite Party

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is having saving account bearing No.32111086714 with OP along with ATM facilities. On 6.02.2018 at about 2.45 hrs., the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.20,000/-  from PNB ATM situated at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-88.  Initially, after inserting the ATM card the transaction could not be materialized and after 2-3 attempts he succeeded in withdrawing Rs.20,000/-.  After this transaction, the account in question show the balance amount of Rs.17,21,554.54.

2.     On 6.2.2018, the complainant checked the mobile phone and found that two messages have been received about the illegal withdrawal of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.17,000/-, in this message the available balance of the account in question is shown as Rs.24,361.09 and Rs.17,361.09 respectively.  In the morning of 7.2.2018, the complainant visited the home branch  and requested to block the ATM where the official of the OP asked him to dial on SBI No.1800 11 22 11 to block the card.  The complainant do the needful and he received the message of card blockage  at 10.47 of 7.2.2018.  When the complainant updated his passbook, he came to know that the following unauthorized transactions of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.17,000/-, Rs.12,700/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,023.60 and Rs.40,000/- totaling Rs.1,31,723.60 have wrongly debited from his saving account.    The complainant even did not receive SMS regarding the same.  The complainant lodged the complaint with the P.S. Shalimar Bagh as well as OP bank but of no use.  The complainant also requested the to provide the CCTV Footage to the  OP bank but nothing has been done by the OP bank. Therefore, complainant approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

 

3.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP denied any deficiency in service on its part. It is stated by the OP at Para-4 which is reproduced as under:

“The present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, in view of the fact that negligence is only on the part of complainant who has part with the card and its password  with some other person who might have created dummy card of the said ATM and would have made such transaction.

The Answering Respondent has confirmed from other branch about the said transaction but other branch have also confirmed that the transactions were successful.

It is submitted that the complainant was duly attended by the Branch Manager and it was suggested to him that if the complainant has not made the disputed transactions then he should lodge a complaint with police in this regard and fill up the standard operation procedure duly supported with documents for claiming the refund but the complainant thereafter neither filled up the SOP Form nor visited the branch for his grievance and approached this Forum directly.

 

The system used to generate message immediately after the transaction without any fault.  There might be some network error with the service provider of the complainant and coloning.

 

As per norms/rules of RBI only a sum of Rs.40,000/- can be withdrawn within 24 hours from ATM but in the present case, a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 7.2.2018  and rest of the amount was transferred through ATM Machine. 

 

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of affidavit

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.     It is argued on behalf of complainant that  on 6.2.2018, at about 2.45 p.m. complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.20,000/-  from the  ATM machine, at  Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.  Initially, after inserting the ATM card, the  transaction could not be materialized and after 2-3 attempts he succeeded in withdrawing Rs.20,000/-.   On 6.2.2018, the transaction slips showed the balance of Rs.17,21,554/-.  In the night of 6.2.2018, the complainant found two message of illegal withdrawal  of Rs.2000/- and Rs.17,000/- from his account.  In the morning of 7.2.2018, complainant visited the home branch and requested to block the ATM card and update the bank passbook.  On updation, he came to know that Rs.2,000/-, Rs.17,000/-, Rs.12,700/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,023.60 and Rs.40,000/- totaling Rs.1,31,723.60 have wrongly debited from his saving account, he even did not receive any SMS alert  on the registered mobile phone regarding the alleged illegal transactions i.e.  Rs.2,000/-, Rs.17,000/-, Rs.12,700/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,023.60 and Rs.40,000/- totaling Rs.1,31,723.60 which were wrongly debited from his saving account.  On the request of the complainant, the bank failed to provide the CCTV footage, so that it would help the police to search the culprit.  It is further argued that despite completing the formalities for claiming the refund nothing has been done by the OP, hence, he is entitled for the reliefs claim.

 

7.     It is argued on behalf of OP that  negligence is only on the part of complainant who has parted with the card and its password  with some other person who might have created dummy card of the said ATM and would have made such transaction. It was suggested to him that if the complainant has not made the disputed transactions then he should lodge a complaint with police in this regard and fill up the standard operation procedure duly supported with documents for claiming the refund but the complainant thereafter neither filled up the SOP Form nor visited the branch for his grievance and approached this Forum directly. The system used to generate message immediately after the transaction without any fault.  There might be some network error with the service provider of the complainant and coloning.

 

8.     Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has placed on record the copy of the complaint addressed to the bank as well as the SOP Form in compliance of the formalities asked by the OP bank. The complainant has also placed on record, mini statement generated through ATM  of PNB bank.  He has also placed on record, the copy of the SMS sent by OP bank on 6.2.2018.  Perusal of the SMS clearly shows that Rs.2000/- and Rs.17,000/- was withdrawn from the complainant’s account and the SMS shows the deficit  amount of Rs.17,361.09 in complainant’s account whereas the saving account balance of the complainant on that day was Rs.17,21,554.54. it is pertinent to mention here that after perusal of the bank statement as well as the two SMS send by OP bank, it is found that more than Rs. 40,000/- were withdrawn within 24 hours,  which is the clear violation of RBI guidelines. This shows that the OP bank was negligent in handling the account of the complainant which led to the huge unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.1,31,723.60/-. 

 

9.     In its written statement, OP bank has alleged that negligence is only on the part of complainant who has parted with the card and its password  with some other person who might have created dummy card of the said ATM and would have made such transaction. The complainant neither filled up the SOP Form nor visited the branch for his grievance and approached this Forum directly. The system used to generate message immediately after the transaction without any fault.  There might be some network error with the service provider of the complainant and coloning.

 

10.    Perusal of the pleading of the OP bank clearly shows that the bank had done nothing to resolve the issue instead, it had failed to entertain and adjudicate the complaint of the complainant on the basis of presumption and surmises that the complainant might have parted with his ATM card and shared its password with anybody. Further, there might be some network error with the service provider of the complainant and coloning. In nutshell, we are of the opinion that the OP bank failed to substantiate  any evidence in support of its contention. 

 

11.    We, therefore, hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:

i)      Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,31,723.60 along with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint  i.e. 14.3.2018 till its realization.

ii)      Pay to the complainant for a sum of Rs.20,000/-as compensation towards harassment, mental agony and pain.

iii)    Pay to the complainant for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as  cost of litigation.

 

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.  The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to R.R

 

Announced in open Forum on   14/09/2020.

 

 

 

                                  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                            PRESIDENT

                                                         

 

 

 

(H M VYAS)

MEMBER