DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.241/2018

Smt Harjinder Kaur

W/o Jaspreet Singh Alias Sukhbir Singh

R/o First Floor 359,

Gautam Nagar

New Delhi-49

….Complainant

Versus

Punjab and Sindh Bank

Through

Chief Manager,

S-18, Green Park Extension

New Delhi-110016

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    :  13.08.2018     

 Date of Order            : 28.08.2024      

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Present:  Adv. Apoorva Nagpal for complainant.

                None for OP.

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.       Succintly put, complainant’s money was withdrawn from her account in Punjab & Sindh Bank, hereinafter referred to as OP. It is stated that the complainant went to withdraw some amount from  OP Bank  and was shocked to see in her passbook that an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- was withdrawn from her account between 15.01.2018 to 29.01.2018.

2.       It is stated that complainant had no knowledge of the said withdrawal and upon having the knowledge, complainant immediately wrote a letter to OP Bank regarding the fraudulent transaction but she received a very lame response from OP.

3.       It is next stated that the daily amount withdrawal limit of complainant’s debit card is only Rs.25,000/- whereas, amount more than Rs.1,00,000/- was withdrawn from complainant’s account that too within a span of  24 hours. As per rules of OP Bank an amount of more than Rs.25,000/- cannot be withdrawn from an account within one day.

4.       Complainant on not receiving a positive response from bank, approached Ombudsman wherein, it was observed that  various ATM transactions were carried out between 12.01.2018 and 31.01.2018 at different ATMs in Mumbai, Shirdi and Surat. The SMSs of 12^th , 13^th  and 14^th January, 2018 were delivered and the complainant did not ask OP to freeze her account or block the debit card. However, after 14^th January the SMSs were generated but not delivered as the subscriber was absent. It was also observed that the CCTV footage received from Citi Bank revealed that male person (other than the complainant) wearing a helmet was seen withdrawing the cash. Ombudsmans’ order further states that there is a possibility that the complainant  was duped by some fraudsters which requires a detailed investigation. Hence, the complaint was closed by the banking ombudsman under clause 13 (d).

5.       Alleging gross negligence and deficient service by OP Bank, complainant prays for direction to OP to pay Rs.4,10,000/- with interest @24% p.a

6.       OP filed its written version stating inter alia that the alleged transaction have taken place either with the permission of the complainant or due to sharing of the ATM Card and pin code details  with the third party, who misused the same for withdrawing money from the complainant’s account.

7.       It is next stated that the complainant has been negligent in reporting this disputed transactions to the Bank in as much as that amount was withdrawn from 15.01.2018 to 29.01.2018. It is stated that the complainant is registered for SMS alerts and the complainant received the SMSs on 15,18,20 and 22 January,2018. Moreover the complainant had withdrawn money from her account via cheques and some transactions of cash withdrawal were also done. Despite all this no request for blocking the card was ever made by the complainant which shows the malafide intentions of the complainant.

8.       Reiterating that the debit/loss has taken place due to usage of ATM card with the valid pin the same could not be done without the complainant sharing it with some other person. OP places its reliance on the decision of the apex court in Kusheshwar Prashad Singh Vs State of Bihar and Others (2007) 11 SSC 447  wherein it is held that no party can take undue advantage of its own wrong. In light of the above facts, it is prayed that complainant be dismissed with the exemplary costs.

9.       Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of complainant reiterating averments made in the complaint. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. Submissions made are heard. Material placed on record is perused.

10.     Admittedly, Rs.4,10,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant. Complainant contends that despite being registered for the SMS alert facility no SMSs regarding  the amount in dispute was received by the complainant. Per contra OP in the email dated 07.03.2018 states as under-

Further, Customer was registered for SMS alert facility. Unauthorized transactions started from 12^th January 2018 till 31^st Jan 2018. SMSs were delivered for transactions dated 12.01.2018, 13.01.2018 & 14.01.2018 (SMS log attached) at same time when transactions took place but customer neither informed the bank nor blocked the debit card. Had customer blocked her card or informed the bank to freeze her account, the subsequent transactions would have been stopped.

11.     OP substantiating the said claim has filed SMS log as Annexure B, which shows that nine SMSs from 12^th to 14^th January had been delivered to the SIM of the complainant. Thereafter, from 15^th onwards the SMSs remained undelivered due to the reason that the ‘subscriber was absent’. Complainant is found to be negligent to the extent that the complainant did not get her card blocked  or asked the bank to freeze her account after receiving the initial SMSs, which led to subsequent loss .

12.     It is next noticed that complainant using  cheques(instrument)  had withdrawn money  during the period in dispute . Complainant is found to be not vigilant enough as despite making withdrawals vide cheques, it was not noticed by the complainant that money was being withdrawn from her account.

13.     Complainant’s reliance on State Bank of India vs P.V. George passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court on 09.01.2019 is ill founded. In this case the complainant was working in an offshore oil rig therefore had no access to his mobile phone for several days. No such peculiarity of avocation has been pleaded by the complainant in the instant case.

14.     In light of the discussion above complaint is dismissed.

                Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.