DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.978 of 2017
Date of institution: 10.11.2017 Date of decision : 29.07.2020
1. Kulwant Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh
2. Chanpreet Singh son of Jasbir Singh
Residents of House No.260/2, Ekta Colony, Village Balongi, Tehsil and District Mohali.
…….Complainants
Versus
1. Punjab & Sind Bank, Mohali Kharar Road, Balongi through its Branch Manager.
2. Axis Bank, 6th Floor, Corporate Office, Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400025 through its Incharge/MD.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Presiding Member,
Shri Inderjit, Member.
Present: Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainants.
OPs Ex-parte.
Order by :- Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Presiding Member.
Order
The complainants have bank account with OP No.1 with ATM-cum-debit card. Complainant is working as Teacher and for construction of her house, she deposited amount of Rs.10,18,301/- on 13.04.2017 in her account after breaking FD. On 23.08.2017 the complainant approached the bank for putting the FD proceeds in her account for withdrawal but the complainants got astonished when they got completed their passbook that amounts of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- have been withdrawn from their account on 03.07.2017, 29.07.2017, 19.08.2017 and 22.08.2017 respectively. On enquiry, OP No.1 informed that the amounts were withdrawn from the ATM of OP No.2 whereas the ATM card was in her possession on these dates as the complainant was on duty and she never gave the PIN of the ATM to anybody. Complainant No.1 immediately gave request to OP No.1 for stopping of the ATM and also for getting the footage of ATM from OP No.2 from where the amounts were withdrawn. The Branch Manager of OP No.1 promised the complainants to enquire into the matter and directed them to lodge DDR and to supply copy of the same to OP No.1. The Branch Manager also informed that the complaint of the complainants will be forwarded to the head office and will also request OP No.2 for footage of CCTV of ATMs and advised the complainants to visit after one week. OP No.2 vide email dated 23.10.2017 refused to give footage alongwith other required documents and told that the footage is not available. Complainants pray that complaint be allowed and OPs be directed to put the amount of Rs.70,000/- back in the account of complainants; to pay them Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and for negligent services and to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges because of deficient and negligent services of the OPs.
2. OP No.1 filed written statement by pleading in preliminary objections that the complainants have not exhausted all the channels available to redress the grievance of the customers of the bank and the complainants have hurriedly approached the Forum. On merits, it is admitted that an amount of Rs.10,18,301/- was credited in the account of the complainants on 13.04.2017. It is admitted that complaint regarding getting CCTV footage from Axis Bank was received. OP No.1 has no command on OP No.2 from whose ATM the money has been withdrawn. OP No.1 has performed its job of forwarding request of complainants and seeking reply from OP No.2 which was informed to the complainants. Denying any deficiency in service on part of OP No.1, dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. OP No.2 is ex-parte in this case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant No.1 Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and then closed evidence. Neither OP No.1 appeared after filing of written statement nor led any evidence. Hence OP No.1 was also proceeded against ex-parte.
5. We have heard arguments of ld. Counsel for the complainants and have gone through the record of this case.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainants during arguments produced circular dated 06th July, 2017 issued by Reserve Bank of India regarding Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions. He has drawn our attention to Clause 5 of this circular wherein it has been mentioned that it is the duty of the banks to ask their customers to mandatorily register for SMS alerts and wherever available register for e-mail alerts, for electronic banking transactions. Ld. Counsel has argued that OP No.1 bank has never asked the complainants to register for SMS alerts and nor it had deducted the necessary charges for the same from their bank account, due to which the complainants had not received any SMS regarding withdrawal of cash from the ATM booth of OP No.2. OP No.1 in the written statement has not taken any plea that it has registered the complainants for SMS alerts or any charges were deducted by it for the same. We have perused the entries made in the pass book Ex.C-1 of account of the complainants but there is no transaction of deduction of charges regarding SMS alerts from the account of complainants, hence we agree with the submission of learned counsel for the complainants.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainants has also drawn our attention to Sub Clause (i) of Clause 6 of the circular dated 06.07.2017 and has argued that customer’s entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorized transaction occurs in the event of contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer). Ld. Counsel for the complainants has further submitted that in the case in hand, the complainants informed the OP No.1 regarding unauthorized transactions from their account and OP No.1 has also admitted this fact in its reply that money was withdrawn from the ATM of OP No.2 and this admission of OP No.1 is binding upon it. It has been held in Clause No.9 of the aforesaid circular that on being notified by the customer, the bank shall credit (shadow reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorized electronic transaction to the customer’s account within 10 working days from the date of such notification. Ld. Counsel has argued that inspite of intimation by the complainants to OP No.1 regarding unauthorized transactions from their account, OP No.1 failed to credit the amount in their account. OP No.1 has simply taken a plea in the written statement that it has done its job by forwarding and seeking reply from OP No.2 which was informed to the complainants but this assertion is not convincing without any evidence on record by OP No.1. As such, we agree with the submission of learned counsel for the complainants that despite information to OP No.1 regarding withdrawal of unauthorized amounts from their account, OP No.1 has not credited the same to complainant’s account as per circular RBI dated 06.07.2017 and OP No.2 had not supplied CCTV footage.
8. As per Clause 12 of circular dated 06.07.2017 the burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorized electronic banking transaction lies on the bank. However, OPs have failed to prove on record liability of complainants regarding unauthorized electronic banking transactions. Thus, the complainants have been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of both the OPs as OP No.1 has not followed the circular dated 06.07.2017 and OP No.2 has not supplied the CCTV footage.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint is allowed with direction to OPs to put the amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.Seventy thousand only) back in the account of the complainants. Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) as litigation expenses are also allowed. Liability of payment of aforesaid amounts to the complainants will be joint and several of both the OPs. The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
July 29, 2020
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Presiding Member
(Inderjit)
Member
