Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 602.

                                                          Instituted on     : 10.12.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 13.12.2021.

Amresh Kumar son of Rama Sankar, resident of Shyam Colony, Rothak.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Indira Colony, Rohtak, through its Branch Manager.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Shri Jagbir Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri S.K. Manchanda, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having its saving account no.145000100305621 alongwith ATM with opposite party. On 7.12.2017 and 8.12.2017, Rs.35000/- and Rs.25,000/- have been withdrawn  from the account of the complainant illegally by some person in connivance with the opposite party, without the ATM card of the complainant. The amount was withdrawn out of Rohtak and various places i.e. Rs.10000/- from Patodi and Rs.25,000/- from Bahadurgarh (Total amount of Rs.35,000/-)  on a signal day i.e. 7.12.2017 and on 8.12.2017 Rs.25,000/- was withdrawn without the ATM card of complainant. After receiving message on the phone of the complainant, he approached the concerned Bank/Opposite party and informed about the amount withdrawn from his account without ATM card and more than limit of withdraw.  On this Branch Manager of the Bank asked about the CCTV footage CD of ATM of Bahadurgarh and Rohtak. The Bank Manager assured to the complainant that the amount illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant will be deposited after some time but till date the amount has not been deposited in the account of the complainant. In this regard, an FIR no.41 of 18.1.2018 in Police Station City Rohtak under Section 406/420 of IPC was registered but till date except assurance from the opposite party, nothing has been received by the complainant. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to deposit the amount of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation on account of harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that it is denied that Rs.35,000/- is withdrawn on 7.12.2007 and Rs.25,000/- on 8.12.2007 without inserting card and pin code(which is only known to the complainant). The ATM Card is in possession of the complainant and pin is only known to the complainant. Other person cannot draw the money without pin number and ATM card. It is also denied that only Rs.25000/- can be withdrawn on a single day as the different limits are fixed for different type of cards. The card of the complainant was different and Rs.40,000/- can be withdrawn from the account in a single day. In case the complainant has deposited the requisite fee for receiving the CD, Footage etc. then the complainant must have received the same from the branch in whose jurisdiction ATM is installed. It is wrong and denied that in ATM withdrawal, Bank officials has any role to play. Balance, card and pin are the three main requirements and card is in the custody of complainant and pin is only known to him. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.  

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on dated 3.10.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 to Ex.R2, and closed his evidence on dated 15.10.2020.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                 In the present case the grievance of the complainant is that illegal withdrawal of Rs.35000/- and Rs.25,000/- through ATM without ATM card has been done from the account of complainant on 7.12.2017 and 8.12.2017 respectively. On the request of complainant and payment of requisite fee, CCTV footage was received by the complainant but despite repeated requests of the complainant, no action has been taken by the opposite party to investigate the matter. To prove the same complainant has placed on record copy of FIR Ex.C1, as per which he has made online complaints on dated 07.12.2017 and 08.12.2017.   On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that the ATM Card is in possession of the complainant and pin is only known to the complainant. Other person cannot draw the money without pin number and ATM card. Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble West Bengal State Commission, Kolkata in first Appeal no.889 of 2014 in case titled as Axis Bank Vs. Rudra Limbu & others and 1(2015)CPJ254 (NC) titled as Raghabendra Nath Sen & Anrs. Vs. Punjab National Bank.

6.                From the documents placed on record by both the parties, it is observed that a strict action was required by the bank on the very first complaint made by the complainant on dated 07.12.2017 when the amount of Rs. 35000/- was withdrawn from his account, so that the further withdrawal from the account of the complainant should be stopped. But no action was taken by the bank on dated 07.12.2017 due to which another amount of Rs.25000/- was further withdrawn from the account of complainant.   It was the prime duty of the bank to block the card of the complainant to stop the further withdrawal from the account of complainant but the same was not done. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is also observed that now a days so many news are heard about the frauds happening around us in which amounts are withdrawn without the ATM card and security code. Hence the plea taken by the opposite party that without ATM and PIN amount cannot be withdrawn is not tenable and the law cited above by ld. Counsel for the opposite party is also not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.  

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to credit the alleged amount of Rs.60000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of withdrawal i.e. 08.12.2017 till the date of credit and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

13.12.2021.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.