Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/501

Rupali Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Davinder Singh Adv.

26 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 501 of 12.07.2016.

Date of Decision            :   26.10.2021

 

Rupali Sharma daughter of Sh. Rajesh Sharma, resident of 9813, Joshi Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1. Punjab National Bank having its Head Office at 7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Company Secretary/Administrator.
2. Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Zonal Manager/Manager.
3. Punjab National Bank having its branch office at Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite parties

 

                    Complaint U/s 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant           :         Sh. Jaspal Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate.

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Sans unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that she was maintaining a savings bank account No.4084000100079629 with OP3. In respect of the said savings account, the complainant was supplied with a debit/ATM card along with PIN number. The complainant was further issued another debit/ATM card bearing No.5126520156922499 against the prior card along with a new PIN number. The complainant lost the PIN number of the debit card and she immediately informed the OPs and issued instructions to block the same. The OPs assured that the debit card would be blocked. Thereafter, the OPs issued a new debit card No.6070930000463638 along with a new PIN number in the month of January 2014 and she has been using the same. On 29.12.2014, a sum of Rs.25,108.85 were debited in the account of the complainant by way of several entries. The complainant immediately enquired about the said entries. The OPs informed the complainant that the amount of Rs.25,108.85 has been debited on account of swapping of previous debit card issued to the complainant. The swapping was done in USA as per the information provided by the Cyber Crime Monitoring Cell of Punjab National Bank. The complainant was shocked to know that her account was debited with old debit card which had already been blocked by the OPs. After coming to know the withdrawal of amount of Rs.25,108.85, the complainant immediately lodged a complaint with the OPs who assured her that they would look into the same and would take necessary action and would also get a case registered. They further assured that the amount of Rs.25,108.85 would be credited back in the account of the complainant. However, the OPs only credited Rs.11,799.75  and failed to credit the remaining amount of Rs.13,309.10. The OPs further failed to get a case registered in respect of fraudulent transaction. The complainant moved an application with the Banking Ombudsman, but despite that no action was taken. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to credit a sum of Rs.13,309.10 in the account of the complainant along with interest and compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the OPs, the complainant got issued card No.5126520066505129 on 19.12.2009 from Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana branch. The said card was hot listed on 04.07.2011 at 02.20 PM.  Thereafter, the complainant got issued another card bearing No.5126520049493559 on 07.07.2011 from the same branch and the said card was also hot listed on 29.11.2012 at 03.09 PM. The complainant further got another card No.5126520156922499 on 10.12.2012 from Magarpatta Pune branch  which was hot listed on 29.12.2014 at 12.37 PM. As per the terms and conditions of the bank, the card is to be hot listed from the branch where the card is issued from or it can be hot listed on toll free number 1800 180 2222. The OPs have further pleaded that in one account, three cards can be issued i.e. one main card and two add-on cards. After receipt of the complaint, the matter was taken up with the concerned department and the charge back claim was filed, but the concerned bank rejected the same stating that out of transaction with card No.5126520156922499, six transactions were found successful while the amount of remaining transaction amounting to Rs.11,799.75  was credited in the account of the complainant on  10.03.2015. Thus, the concerned bank rejected the claim with regard to six transactions which were successful. The said six transactions  were in US dollars and were made on 28.12.2014  whereas the complainant got her card hot listed on  29.12.2014 at 12.37 PM. In these circumstances, it is clear that the card was used by the complainant herself and in respect of the transactions which were found unsuccessful, concerned bank returned the amount. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and wrong and a prayer for dismissal of complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs submitted affidavit Ex. OPA of Sh. Ashok Arora, Senior Manager of OPs along with documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP18 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through record very minutely. 

6.                During the course of arguments, it has been contended by the counsel for the complainant that a sum of Rs.25,108.85 was withdrawn by way of fraudulent transaction from the account of the complainant on 29.12.2014 using the debit card which had already been hot listed by the complainant. The OPs have refunded the amount of Rs.11,799.75 whereas the amount of Rs.13,309.10 has not been refunded. According to counsel for the complainant, this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The  counsel for the complainant has further contended that the factum of transaction or withdrawal being fraudulent are writ large considering the fact that the transaction was admittedly made somewhere in USA. Therefore, the OPs must be held liable to refund the amount of Rs.13,309.10  along with interest and compensation and litigation expenses as prayed for in the complaint.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP Bank has argued that the card No. 5126520156922499 was actually blocked on 29.12.2014 at 12.37 PM and not earlier to  the so called fraudulent transactions of withdrawal of Rs.25,108.85. It has also been pointed out by the counsel for the OPs that the complainant has been getting the debit card issued from time to time as she sometimes lost the card and sometimes forgot the PIN number. It  has also been pointed out by the counsel for the OPs that it is not a case of the complainant that she lost the card or revealed the PIN number to anybody and since the card in question continued to be with her, there is no possibility of any transaction taking place without the consent and knowledge of the complainant. The counsel for the OPs has further argued that in the entire episode, no fault can be found with the OPs for which they could be held responsible to refund the amount of Rs.13,309.10/-.

8.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the OPs and have also gone through record.

9.                By way of this complaint, the complainant has claimed that she got issued a new debit card bearing No.6070930000463638 which she has been using in the month of January 2014. However, the transaction of withdrawal of Rs.25,108.75 were made on 29.12.2014 using the card which had already been blocked. The complainant has, however, not mentioned the number of the card which was used to make transactions of withdrawal of Rs.25,108.85.

10.              On the contrary, the OPs have placed on record the detail of hot listing of the  card. In this regard, a reference can be made to the notice Ex. R1 wherein the detail of cards previously issued to the complainant which were hot listed has been given as under:-

Account No.	Debit Card No.	Card issuance date	Date and Time hot listed card
4084000100079629	5126520049493559	07.07.2011	29.11.2012/03.09 PM
4084000100079629	5126520066505129	19.12.2009	04.07.2011/02.20 PM
4084000100079629	5126520156922499	10.12.2012	29.12.2014/12.37  PM
4084000100079629	6070930000463638	08.01.2014	29.12.2014/12.39 PM

 

In the evidence, the complainant has not lead any evidence as to when she got the previous cards hot listed. Even in affidavit Ex. CA, the date of hot listing of card No. 5126520156922499 has not been given. If the card was hot listed on  29.12.2014 itself, when the alleged fraudulent transaction took place, no fault can be found with the OPs as the card must have been hot listed after the transactions have been made. Had the complainant lost the card No. 5126520156922499 anytime before 29.12.2014, she should have informed the bank immediately. The liability on account of fraudulent transaction could have fastened on the bank only if the transaction had taken place using the debit card which had already been hot listed/blocked. As it is not so in the instant case, in our considered view, no liability can be fastened on the OP bank. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon  HDFC Bank Limited Vs Jesna Jose in Revision Petition No.3333 of 2013 decided on 21.12.2020 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi whereby it has been held that even if the deficiency was not with the bank, but elsewhere in the system, the bank will be held liable for all the 29 unauthorized transactions which were effected from 15.12.2008  till the card was hot listed on 20.12.2008. We have gone through the cited case, but in our considered view, the law laid down in the cited case cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this regard, a reference can be made to the judgment dated 07.04.2011 passed in Revision Petition No.3182 of 2008 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case title State Bank of India Vs K.K. Bhalla whereby it has been held that without the ATM card and knowledge of the PIN number, it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorized person from an ATM and therefore, it is difficult to accept that the bank was responsible for the fraudulent withdrawals which might have occurred because of ATM card or PIN fallen in wrong hands. 

11.              As a sequel of foregoing discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

12.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

13.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

 

  (Jaswinder Singh)                         (K.K. Kareer)

            Member                                                   President

 

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:26.10.2021

Gobind Ram.