DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 63/2016

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1. Ms. Kulvinder Kaur Sodhi (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint against M/s Punjab National Bank, Fire Station, Shankar Road, New Delhi (in short OP) pleading therein that she has an account bearing No. 3075000101760246  with OP Bank.

It is stated that she did two transactions through her Debit Card from ATM on 25.05.2015 for Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 10,000/- which were successful.However, OP debited Rs. 50,000/- from her account on 25.05.2015 in a day which is beyond the permissible limit of Rs. 25,000 /- in a day.Accordingly, she made a representation to OP but nothing was done.Hence, the instant complaint wherein shehas prayed for refund of Rs. 25,000/- and compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for suffering harassment.

2. OP appeared and contested the claim of the complainant vide its reply.  It is admitted that complainant has a savings account with OP.  It is stated that OP issued ATM-cum-Debit Card to the complainant which is in her custody.  It is stated that no cash from her account could have been withdrawn without use of pin which OP had provided to her.  It is further stated that if complainant did not withdraw cash from the Bank as claimed her ATM Card must have been stolen or she might have disclosed the ATM pin to somebody who withdrew cash from the Bank by using her ATM card and ATM pin. It is further stated that OP has also verified the transactions from the ATM cell and found that transactions 1058 at 21:40 and 1059 at 21:41 on 24.05.2015  for Rs. 15,000/- & Rs. 10,000/- respectively were done by the complainant, but due to technical reason complainant’s account was debited for the same on 25.05.2015. It is stated that it is an admitted case of the complainant that she had done two successful transactions for amount of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-on 25.05.2015.  Hence, there are four debit entries in her account showing total transaction of Rs. 50,000/- which was actually done in two days i.e. on 24.05.2015 and on 25.05.2015 and that copy of JB log is annexed as Annexure A. It is further submitted that upon receipt of complaint of the complainant the opposite party forwarded the complaint to the ATM cell and ATM cell sent JB log in reply .

3. We have perused the case filed.

4.   Only consumer with ATM card knows PIN without use of which money cannot be withdrawn from ATM.  We find substance in the submission of the OP that if complainant herself did not withdraw cash from the Bank, either she might have disclosed the ATM pin to somebody close to her who would have then misused the same and withdrawn cash from the Bank or she did not keep the same in safe custody as a result of which somebody having access to the same withdrew money by misusing ATM card and pin of the complainant.

5. It is pleaded by the complainant that permissible limit for withdrawal in a day was Rs. 25,000/- therefore, she could not have withdrawn Rs. 50,000/- in a day.  Case of the Bank, on the other hand, is that as indicated by JB log there are four digital entries in her account showing total transactions of Rs. 50,000/- which was actually done in two days i.e. 24.05.2015 and 25.05.2015.  It is stated that on receiving complaint of the complainant, OP forwarded the complaint to the ATM cell and ATM cell provided JB log to the OP.

6. OP’s case is reinforced by judgement of National Commission in the case titled State Bank of India vs Sansar Chand Kapoor & anr., in RP No.2889/2014 decided on 15.01.2015 wherein Hon’ble National Commission observed as under:

“We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cash from the account of the complainant could have been withdrawn without use of the ATM card which the petitioner bank had issued to him along with use of the pin which the bank had provided to him.If the complainant himself did not withdraw cash from the bank on 10.11.2011, as is claimed by him, his ATM card must have been stolen or otherwise obtained by some unscrupulous person.Not only that, the ATM pin must have been either disclosed by the complainant to the person who withdrew cash from the bank or he would not have kept it in safe custody as a result of which the person who withdrew the money through the use of the ATM could lay his hand on the said pin and later feed the pin in the ATM machine while using the ATM card issued to the complainant.Therefore, no deficiency in services is made out on account of the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from the bank account of the complainant on 10.11.2011.”

7. In view of the above discussion complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.

8. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

Announced on this 28^th March of 2022.