THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 178-15
Date of Institution : 25.3.2015
Date of Decision : 4.11.2015
Prof.Sukha Singh Kang age 64 years S/o S. Ujagar Singh, resident of 27-Dashmesh Avenue, PO Rayon & Silk Mills, Amritsar ...Complainant
Vs.
Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Kot Khalsa Surta Singh Road, Amritsar
Punjab National Bank through its Manager Director/Executive Director, Head Office Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Pardeep Arora,Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh. Sumesh Sharma,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Prof. Sukha Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is having saving bank account No. 3397001300002972 in the opposite party No.1 bank at Amritsar. The complainant has also ATM debit card facility. Complainant has alleged that on 27.11.2014 he received messages on his mobile regarding withdrawal of account from 7.19 PM onwards. The complainant also received messages of OTP and transactions thereof and the amount had been debited from his account. The complainant submitted that he had not disclosed his mobile and ATM PIN to any other person nor he has made the aforesaid transactions . The complainant lodged complaint with bank's help line No. 1800-180-2222 and also e-mail on the website of the opposite party bank regarding the unauthorized withdrawal from his account. Opposite party blocked debit card on the request of the complainant and assured to decide the complaint and settle the claim of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party bank and requested for reverse of unauthorized debit entries numbering 16 amounting to Rs. 59900/- and after three visits the bank has credited only Rs. 4084/- vide four entires on 4.12.2014. After 4.12.2014 the complainant is continuously visiting the office of the opposite party No.1 but opposite party neither credited the amount into the account of the complainant nor gave any satisfactory reply. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to credit the amount of Rs. 55816/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant is saving bank account holder, bearing No. 3397001300002972 of the opposite party bank. Opposite party had also issued ATM debit card in the abovesaid account of the complainant. All the entries dated 27.11.2014 in the saving bank account of the complainant pertain to make of payment by the use of ATM card in course of online transactions made by the complainant. The ATM card and its PIN in sealed condition is issued by the debit card Cell, New Delhi of the opposite party bank to its branches and the same is further issued by the branches of the bank to its account holders on request in sealed condition. So the complainant was issued ATM card as well as its PIN to the complainant in sealed condition totally secretely and the complainant/customer is required to keep it confidential . So the opposite party bank had no knowledge of PIN of ATM card of the complainant. One cannot use ATM card without its PIN. In the purpose of making of payment by the use of ATM card in course of online transactions one needs to mention details of ATM card alongwith its PIN/3D Secure Service Password and for the purpose of creating 3 D Secure Service Password one needs to mention details of ATM card alongwith its PIN. The complainant has in exclusive possession of ATM card and in exclusive knowledge of PIN, therefore question of its misuse did not arise at all. The opposite party submitted that at the instance of the complainant, the ATM card issued to him vide which the online transactions were made on 27.11.2014 by the complainant. However, said ATM card was blocked by the opposite party bank as and when the complainant requested for its blockage . It was submitted that four entires dated 4.12.2014 vide which the amount of Rs. 4084/- has been credited to the account of the comdplainant pertain to refund arising out of online transactions made by the complainant on 27.11.2014. It was denied that after 4.12.2014 complainant has been continuously visiting the opposite party No.1 . It was submitted that since the complainant is liable for the debit entires dated 27.11.2014, therefore, the question of credited the same by the opposite parties does not arise. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-20..
4. Opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Sr.Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/8.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties it is clear that complainant has saving bank account No. 3397001300002972 in the opposite party No.1 bank at Amritsar. The complainant has also ATM debit card facility. The complainant alleges that on 27.11.2014 he received messages on his mobile regarding withdrawal of account from 7.19 PM onwards. The complainant also received messages on OTP and transactions thereof and the amount had been debited from his account. The complainant submitted that he had not disclosed his mobile and ATM PIN to any other person nor he has made the aforesaid transactions . The complainant lodged complaint with bank's help line No. 1800-180-2222 and also e mail on the website of the opposite party bank regarding the unauthorized withdrawal from his account. Opposite party blocked debit card on the request of the complainant and assured to decide the complaint and settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant approached the branch manager of the opposite party bank at Amritsar and requested for reverse of unauthorized debit entries numbering 16 amounting to Rs. 59,900/-. But the opposite party has credited only Rs. 4084/- in the account of the comdplainant on 4.12.2014 as per the statement of account of the complainant but did not credit the balance amount wrongly debited to the account of the complainant . Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant is saving bank account holder of the opposite party bank. Opposite party had also issued ATM debit card in the abovesaid account of the complainant. All the entries dated 27.11.2014 in the saving bank account of the complainant pertain to make of payment by the use of ATM card in course of online transactions made by the complainant. The ATM card and its PIN in sealed condition is issued by the debit card Cell, New Delhi of the opposite party bank to its branches and the same is further issued by the branches of the bank to its account holders on request in sealed condition. So the complainant was issued ATM card as well as its PIN to the complainant in sealed condition totally secretely and the complainant/customer is required to keep it 'confidential' . So the opposite party bank had no knowledge of PIN of ATM card of the complainant. One cannot use ATM card without its PIN. For the purpose of making of payment by the use of ATM card in course of online transactions one needs to mention details of ATM card alongwith its PIN/3D Secure Service Password and for the purpose of creating 3 D Secure Service Password one needs to mention details of ATM card alongwith its PIN. The complainant has in exclusive possession of ATM card and in exclusive knowledge of PIN, therefore question of its misuse did not arise at all. The opposite party submitted that at the instance of the complainant, the ATM card issued to him vide which the online transactions were made on 27.11.2014 by the complainant or by somebody on his behalf having ATM card and knowledge of PIN of ATM card of the complainant. However, said ATM card was blocked by the opposite party bank as and when the complainant requested for its blockage . Thereafter fresh ATM card has been issued to the complainant on his request by the opposite party bank which is being used by the complainant. Opposite party further alleged that the complainant also used OTP and made transactions thereof . OTP message was received by the complainant on his mobile phone. All this shows that only the complainant has knowledge of OTP (One Tme Payment) and as such the transactions were made by the complainant after receipt of the message of OTP. Opposite party submitted that no complaint was lodged by the complainant to the opposite party bank. Opposite party bank received only written complaint from the complainant on 20.2.2015 Ex.C-20 and that too after a lapse of a period of about 3 months. Opposite party has submitted that as all the transactions were made by the complainant or by somebody on behalf of the complainant to whom the complainant has handed over the ATM card or its detailed particulars as well as PIN as well as OTP because without knowledge of the same no transaction could not made online on the said ATM card. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant is in exclusive possession of ATM card and has exclusive knowledge of its PIN . No transaction can be made by any person even on online without ATM card or knowledge of its full details and PIN code of the said ATM card as well as OTP. The complainant received the OTP on his mobile phone and then he was permitted to use the OTP. So without the knowledge of the message of OTP which was given only to the complainant on his exclusive mobile phone, no other person could make the transaction without OTP. As such it has to be presumed that the transactions in question which were made online on the night of 27.11.2014 , on the ATM card of the complainant were either made by the complainant himself or by any person on behalf of the complainant to whom the complainant has either handed over the ATM card or disclosed the full detals of his ATM card and its PIN code as well as OTP because it is the only complainant who received OTP message on his personal exclusive mobile phone. Without knowledge of the OTP no transaction could be made by any person. Complainant nowhere pleaded that his ATM card and mobile phone have been stolen by some unknown person nor the complainant had pleaded that he was forced to disclose his ATM details as well as PIN or his mobile phone was snatched nor the complainant has lodged any complaint in this regard with the police or any other law enforcing agency nor he informed the opposite party before these transactions regarding loss, if any, of his ATM card, its PIN and mobile phone, etc. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case Raghabendra Nath Sen and another Vs. Punjab National Bank 2015(1) CP(J 254 that no withdrawal from ATM can be made unless the ATM card/debit card issued to account holder is inserted in ATM machine followed by use of ATM PIN provided to the customer. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case State Bank of India Vs. K.K. Bhalla 2011(2) CPJ 106 that no transaction regarding withdrawal of money can be made without using ATM card and PIN number which are exclusive in the possession of the ATM card holder. It is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorized person from an ATM. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission of UT Chandigarh in case Arundeep Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd 2013(3) CPJ 174 that unless a person is in possession of relevant ATM card and knows four digit PIN code, ATM card cannot be used and operated. The complainant through out remained in exclusive possession of the ATM card as well as its PIN code i.e. having exclusive knowledge of four digits personal identification number (PIN) of said card, the question of mis-use of same by anybody else did not at all arise . Fraudulent withdrawal, if any, is due to fault of the complainant, deficiency in service on the part of the bank is not established.
9. Similar are the facts of the present case. The complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank.
10. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
4.11.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
