Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/397/2018

Rohan Gouri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

25 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	397/2018
Date of Institution	:	16.07.2018
Date of Decision	:	25.03.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Rohan Gouri s/o Rajinder Kumar, H.No.78, Village Raipur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Maloya, Chandigarh.
2. Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
3. Reserve Bank of India, New Office Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
4. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
5. Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Building No.5, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Rajinder Kumar, father of the complainant in person.

                None for OPs No.3 & 5.

                Sh.Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for OPs  No.1, 2 & 4.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant  is having Savings bank Account with the Punjab National Bank, Branch Maloya, Chandigarh and on 11.01.2018 he received a message on his mobile phone at 7.40 p.m. that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn from his savings account.  Similarly another message was received at the same moment that a sum of Rs.13,500/- was withdrawn from his account. It has further been averred that the said amounts were withdrawn from his account through ATM.  He immediately informed the same at the Customer Care of the PNB to block the ATM card and also contacted the Police Authorities by dialing 100 number at 8.25 P.M.  Thereafter, he lodged a written complaint to RBI Ombudsman at Chandigarh on 12.01.2018 who informed him that the complainant has himself received the money.  According to the complainant, it is not possible that he may be present at two places far away from each other at the same time.  It has further been averred that he made repeated requests and visits to the OPs but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, OPs No.1 to 4 have pleaded that the story put forwarded by the complainant in the complaint as well as before the Banking Ombudsman and the DDR is contradictory.  It has further been pleaded that since the transactions were made through the ATM card which was exclusively in his possession and he had the exclusive knowledge regarding the PIN. It has further been pleaded that it was not the case of the complainant that his ATM card was stolen, cloned or the same was misplaced, it could not be said that there was any deficiency in rendering service on their part or they have indulged into unfair trade practice.   It has further been pleaded that the debit/ATM card could only be used, if the customer inputs his personal four digit identification number which was selected by him and not by the Bank and the customer is advised to retain the PIN Code in his memory so that no one else is privy to the same.   It has further been pleaded that the reverse of ATM card has a magnetic strip and white strip for signatures of the cardholder and the magnetic strip contains the cardholder’s details and the card could be used to gain entry into the ATM enclosure by swiping it in the access lodge. In other words unless a person is in possession of the relevant ATM Card and knows the four digit PID code, the same cannot be used and operated.  It has further been pleaded  that the complainant filed the complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Chandigarh and the OPs submitted its reply dated 30.05.2011 as well as relevant Electronic Journal Log, CCTV footage along with the photograph of the complainant and after that the complaint was closed vide order dated 09.04.2018. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In their separate written statement, OPs No.3 and 5 have pleaded that the complainant is not entitled to any relief against them and therefore, their names are liable to be strike out from the array of the parties.  It has further been pleaded that the complaint received from the complainant was registered on 16.01.2018 and the PNB in its response dated 16.02.2018 had submitted that as can be seen from the CCTV footage a person wearing white cap entering ATM cabin and withdrawing the cash for two transactions and the Bank submitted that due to the cap, the face of the person was not clear but when he turned back, his face could be seen clearly and both his face as well as the physique matches with the photograph provided.   It has further been pleaded that the submission of the Bank that the transactions were done by the complainant himself was considered and the case was closed and the parties were informed accordingly. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of Ops No.1 to 4 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.   
5.         We have heard the father of the complainant, learned Counsel for OPs No.1, 2 & 4 and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival pleadings of the parties and the documentary evidence on record, the complaint is required to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.  It is not the case of the complainant that his ATM card was stolen, cloned or the same was misplaced and the said card was duly used at the ATM machine for making the transactions in question.   Besides this, the complainant was aware of the special four digit PIN number which is essential to operate the ATM Card.  The contention of the complainant that the withdrawals were made through some unauthorized person cannot be accepted because no withdrawal can be made unless the ATM Card issued to the account holder is inserted in the ATM machine followed by use of ATM pin provided to the customer.   The ATM pin is known only to the customer and therefore, it is not possible for a third person to withdraw any cash through the ATM even if he is able to clone the ATM /debit card issued to the customer.  The ATM pin obviously must have been used since no transaction at ATM machine is possible without use of the PIN number.  
7.         Our view is further bolstered from the judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in State Bank of India Vs. K.K.Bhalla, 2011(2) CPJ-106 and Raghbendra Nath Sen Vs. PNB -2015(1) CPJ-254 in which it was observed as under:-

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) — Banking and Financial Institutions Services — ATM Card — Withdrawal of cash — Illegal withdrawal alleged — Alleged deficiency in service — District Forum allowed complaint — State Commission allowed appeal — Hence revision — Contention, amount of Rs. 5,000 withdrawn from account by a third person using ATM — Not accepted — 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 customer — Even if amount was withdrawn by third person, he would have done it using ATM card provided to him by complainant and ATM pin disclosed by him — Deficiency not proved.

8.         It is apt to mention here that the complaint filed before the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Chandigarh was also closed vide order dated 09.04.2018. Thus, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OPs and the complaint being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                 sd/-                         sd/-

ANNOUNCED	[RAVINDER SINGH]	[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
25/03/2019	MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER