Delhi

North East

CC/180/2016

SH. DHARAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 180/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Dharam Singh S/o Sh. Ramji R/o H.No. 59/282-A, Kalandar Colony, Dilshad Garden, Jhilmil, Delhi-110095.	Complainant
	Versus
	Punjab National Bank Through its Branch Manager KK-9, B-Block Shopping Complex Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

13.07.2016 25.02.2019 25.02.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Facts material to the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant was holder of debit card bearing  number 5126520211977975 issued by OP bank where the complainant was holding savings account number 3927000100247261. The complainant had withdrawn a sum of  Rs. 15,000/- from OP ATM located at Dilshad Colony branch Delhi on 15.06.2016 at 02:50PM and Rs. 3,500/- on the same day at 02:52PM and also received the Messages of the transactions on his mobile phone. However, on the same day i.e. 15.06.2016, between 06:48PM to 07:24PM, the complainant received three message alerts on his mobile of withdrawal of Rs. 4,000/- at 04:01PM, Rs. 4,000/- at 04:03PM and Rs. 1,000/- at 04:08PM of shopping done from his debit card. The complainant immediately informed the customer care of OP of unauthorized debits and asked OP to block his debit card immediately on receiving the messages around 07:30PM. Thereafter the complainant went to the OP branch for resolution of his problem but instead of solving the same, the officials of OP behaved badly with the complainant. Therefore, feeling aggrieved at deficiency of service on the part of OP causing hardship, mental trauma, pain and agony to the complainant, the complainant was left with no alternative but to file the present complaint before this Forum, praying for issuance of directions against OP to remit back the wrongfully deducted Rs. 9,000/- from the complainant’s debit card alongwith interest thereon @18% p.a. and to further pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental trauma, pain and agony and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation cost.

Complainant has attached copy of passbook entries of the disputed/unauthorized debits of Rs. 9,000/- from account held with OP debited on ECOM.

2. Notice was issued to OP which entered appearance and filed written statement on 28.09.2016 in which the OP took the preliminary objection that the complainant had concealed the factum of credited amount of Rs. 5,000/- in his savings bank account on 23.06.2016. The OP took the defence that the PIN number issued alongwith debit card is secret and issued in a confidential manner known only to the customer and therefore, while admitting that the above mentioned three transactions were done between 04:01PM and 04:08PM, stated that the complainant must have shared his PIN number with somebody who used his debit card on 15.06.2016 between the aforementioned timings for ECOM. The OP further submitted that on receipt of call of the complainant, his debit card was immediately blocked late in the evening and no transaction was made thereafter as can be seen from the statement of the account. The OP submitted that some time due to server connectivity, the messages on the registered mobile come late as the entire process is computerized and so is the transaction therefore the blockage of the debit card of the complainant was done late in the evening after getting message from the bank. Lastly OP denied any deficiency of service on its part and prayed for summary dismissal of the complaint.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP and evidence by way of affidavit were filed by the complainant in rebuttal to the defence taken in which the complainant denied having received any remittance of Rs. 5,000/- from OP in his account maintained with OP bank and reiterated grievance of deficiency of service on the part of OP for wrongful debit of Rs. 9,000/- from his account while the said debit card was in complainant’s pocket at the time the disputed transactions were made against the said card thrice and messages regarding the same were received after a delay of three hours which again was a deficiency of service since his card was blocked by OP after his account had already been debited by Rs. 9,000/- for which the OP is responsible since the said transactions occurred without the consent of the complainant and therefore prayed for relief against OP.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP in reiteration of his defence taken in its written statement of having remitted Rs. 5,000/- back in the account of the complainant on 23.06.2016 and alleging that the debit card of the complainant was used by somebody by on 15.06.2016 between 04:01PM to 04:08PM for withdrawal of Rs. 9,000/- due to complainant having shared his PIN number with someone known to him for which OP cannot be held accountable since it blocked the debit card immediately on receiving call from the complainant. The OP has attached certificate dated 23.11.2016 of the transactions in question dated 15.06.2016 of Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- at 04:01PM, 04:03PM and 04:08PM respectively.
5. Written arguments were filed by both the parties reemphasizing their respective grievance/defence. The OP placed on record the Account Ledger Inquiry Report qua the complainant highlighting the three disputed transaction dated 15.06.2016 totaling                       Rs. 9,000/- debited from his account and Rs. 5,000/- credited in his account on 23.06.2016. This Forum had directed the OP to corroborate the said reversal made vide entry number IMPS-IM/617518735535 alongwith affidavit. The OP vide affidavit under Section 65-B of Evidence Act submitted that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- credited in the complainant’s account on 23.06.2016 did not relate to the transactions in question and regretfully accepted its mistake in stating the same erroneously in its written statement and evidence by way of affidavit. Alongwith the said affidavit the OP also file series of e-mails exchanged between its Dilshad Garden office, Delhi and Data Cell between 12.09.2018 to 17.09.2018 whereby queries were raised regarding the time of sending messages to the complainant for the withdrawal of amounts of  Rs. 9,000/- on 15.06.2016, time of transactions and the time at which the ATM of the complainant was requested to be blocked on 15.06.2016. To the above said queries, the data cell of OP replied that the transactions happened between 15:59:31PM to 16:06:35PM on 15.06.2016 vide reference numbers 951649, 952380 and 954491. The time of ATM blocked by customer (complainant herein) on 15.06.2016 was 20:02:20PM. For SMS alerts, they were following with SMS alert team though the alerts were delivered successfully as per SMS Logs Report for the above mentioned transactions.
6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and examined the entire material evidence on record.

It is not in dispute that the complainant is an account holder and debit card holder of OP bank. The dispute arose when the complainant’s debit card was charged with shopping of Rs. 9,000/- on 15.06.2016 not having been done by him as per his averment alleging the same to be unauthorized / unlawful use of his debit card which OP has defended itself on grounds of complainant having parted with the secret PIN number and compromised the confidentiality of the said card.

RBI circular dated 06.07.2017 regarding Consumer Protection and limited liability of customer in unauthorized electronic banking transaction mandates that the banks must put in place robust and dynamic fraud detection and prevention mechanism. Further zero liability of customer in case of third party breach in case customer notifies the bank within three working days of suchunauthorized transactions and that the reversal time for such unauthorized transaction is ten working days from such notification by customer. The burden of proof for customer liability in case of such unauthorized electronic transaction shall lie on the bank.The Hon’ble NCDRC in State Bank of India Vs Dr. J.C.S. Kataky III 2018 CPJ 193 (NC) passed on 03.05.2017 which case pertains to similar facts of fraudulent transactions entered into by using complainant’s ATM were before the Hon’ble National Commission for adjudication and the Hon’ble National Commission had framed the key issue for consideration ‘whether it was the duty of the bank to play any meaningful role in the matter when their own customer / complainant had reported to them about the alleged fraudulent transaction from his account on three different occasion on the same day’. The Hon’ble National Commission had held after appreciating extensive arguments led by both sides that it was a duty of bank to have carried out necessary verification in the matter rather than washing their hands off from the whole episode holding the bank guilty of deficiency of service vis-à-vis the consumer/complainant.

The subject matter of dispute is the veracity / authenticity of the disputed transactions in question which the complainant has vehemently denied to have been entered into/done by him on 15.06.2016 between 04:01PM to 04:08PM or even between 03:59PM to 04:06PM as per OP. The OP bank has in our opinion simply taken a standard stereo typical defence of debit card and secret PIN being in knowledge of the complainant and likelihood of it being shared with / misused but it is clear from the records before us that OP did not make any effort to investigate into the matter or to assist the complainant to bring the culprits to book. It was the duty of OP being the service provider of the complainant to have looked into the matter to arrive at a logical conclusion but failed in its duty. OP was further utterly deficient in not sending prompt mobile alerts to the complainant for repeated transactions from his debit card which if otherwise had been sent promptly and timely, would have alerted the complainant and averted the possibility of such a mishap notwithstanding the fact that the complainant could not place on record the transcript of mobile alerts received belatedly by him (after three and half hours) after transaction unrebutted by OP in having failed to file the exact SMS alert time due to which the complainant could only sent request for blocking his debit card at 08:00PM since the last message of withdrawal was received at 07:24PM. The Hon’ble National Commission in HDFC Bank Ltd Vs Hemant Narayan Devande III (2017) CPJ 370 (NC) in a case of deceitful transaction made from credit card had observed that an enquiry from the bank only could have revealed that the transaction had be incurred on secured mode using secure login and password but the bank did not check with the merchant about veracity of such transactions which would have giving the lead to make further enquiry into question of deceitful payment and therefore held the bank deficient in service qua the consumer. The Hon’ble National Commission in R Udayasanker Vs Central Bank of India II (2018) CPJ 293 (NC) had held that it has been provided in the Preamble of Consumer Protection Act 1986as well as that the objective of enacting the said legislation is to ensure better protection of the interest of the consumer. Once it is proven from the report of expert that the complainant did not withdraw the money himself, he deserves to be given compensation, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment relied upon by OP of Sandeep Sharda Vs ICICI passed by Hon’ble NCDRC is not applicable in the present case since in the said case the complainant had delivered his card to an executive of the bank for enhancement of credit limit and issuance of a new credit card whereas in the case in hand, the complainant never parted with the debit card at any point of time.

7. In view of the settled propositions of law and due appreciation of the evidence placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is merit in the present complaint and we hold the OP bank guilty of deficiency of service and dereliction of duty, indifference and utter disregard shown to a serious offence of this nature and grievance of the complainant in failure to initiate any enquiry at any level.
8. We therefore direct OP to remit back the sum of Rs. 9,000/- back to the account of the complainant held with itself alongwith interest @9% thereon from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. We further direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of litigation to the complainant. Let the order be complied by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  
9.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.  File be consigned to record room.
11.  Announced on 25.02.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member