DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.13/2018

Mrs. Mohinderjit Kaur

W/o Harjeet Singh

R/o 135/3, Second Floor

Gautam Nagar,

New Delhi-110049.                                            ….Complainant

Versus

Punjab & Sind Bank

Branch Green Park Extension

New Delhi-110016.                                            ….Opposite Party

     Date of Institution :19.01.2018    

            Date of Order : 01.12.2022  

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: U.K. Tyagi, Member

           Complainant has made request to pass an award directing Punjab & Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP) to pay  a sum of Rs. 70,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a from the date of filing this complaint till its realization and Rs.50,000/- as damages/compensation towards mental agony etc.

        Brief facts of case are as under:-

The Complainant is having Bank account No.10231 with Punjab & Sind Bank, Green Park Extension Branch. On 16.01.2018 & 17.01.2018, an amount of Rs.70,000/- was debited from her bank account in denomination of Rs.10,000/- & Rs.5,000/-. The Complainant got to know of these transactions on 17.01.2018. She lodged a complaint to this effect in  Hauz Khas Police Station on 17.01.2018. The same day, the Complainant approached Bank-Manager and complained to the Branch Manger about these unauthorized transactions. Copy of the same enclosed with complaint. The complainant was intimated that these transactions had taken place at the ATM of  Punjab National Bank at Mumbai.

        The Complainant posed the question how, the transaction can take place when debit card was with her. As per regulations maximum cash withdrawal limit for a day was Rs. 25,000/- and maximum 03 transaction can be done, how an amount of Rs.45,000/- can be withdrawn in 05 transactions in one day i.e 16.01.2018. It shows negligent act of the bank, which has caused a breach of  trust. Hence, the complaint.

        OP, on the other hand, filed reply interalia raised some preliminary objections. The OP alleged that the transaction could not take place unless the complainant had shared ATM card and PIN details with the party who used the same for said debit with the permission of complainant. It is also stated that the complainant is registered for SMS alert of each transaction and he got SMS immediately as confirmed by the complainant to the Bank Branch and also via the SMS agency of each 08 transactions. OP further asserted that first three transactions took place on 16.01.2018 after 12.00 midnight and next two on 16.01.2018 and next three transactions took  place on 17.01.2018. The complainant chose to lodge complaint after 8 debits and on 3^rd day of transactions. It is incomprehensible as to why a prudent  person would wait to report transactions on her account, if carried out without his consent whereas  24x7 Redressal Fora of the bank are available. The request for blocking the card by complainant came only on 17.01.2018 late in afternoon.

        As per rules & regulations, when payment credentials are shared by the client themselves, the client   has to bear the entire loss. The parawise reply has been given by the OP and denied the averments of the complainant unless specifically admitted. The complainant got SMS alerts immediately, when the same took place. The  date & detail of each transaction given by the complainant are wrong and correct details are given below:-

It is also asserted by OP that details of ATM shows the proper ATM card was used with valid pin. The same could not anyhow be done without sharing the above details by complainant with other persons. Had the complainant timely reported, as and when first transaction took place, other subsequent transactions could have been stopped immediately by blocking the card in question.

The complainant was shown the CCTV images received from ICICI Bank & Kotak Mahindra Bank both on whose ATM transactions were carried out (Axis Bank could not be provided as not being available). The complainant feigned not to acknowledge the person.

The OP-Bank has also given the certificate u/s 2A(b)& 2A(c) of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act. The OP has also enclosed the copy of Compensation Policy of the bank as enclosed at Annexure-D.

Both the parties have filed written statements as well as evidence in-affidavit. Written Statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard & concluded.

This commission has gone into the entire material placed on record. This Commission further took notice of these facts. The complainant maintained that 05 unauthorized transaction had taken place on 16.01.2018 and 03 transactions took place on 17.012018 whereas of OP-Bank contested this ground of Complainant that first three debits took place on 15.01.2018, next two debits on 16.01.2018 and next three debits transaction took place on 17.01.2018. It was further minutely examined from the table given above that the ATM ID of  all these 08 transactions matched with each other but OP has further given the timings of each debit transaction. From the perusal of these, it is confirmed that all these transactions took place in the night or early morning. The OP-Bank has provided Sequence Nos. as well. On the basis of facts and documents, the OP’s case  seems more robust. It is noted that copy of Account Ledger Report on behalf of the OP-Bank was filed wherein Rs.45,000/- has been shown  credited to the Complainant account. The order of this forum for 17.12.2018 was perused and it is vividly found mentioned that Rs.45,000/- of the defaulted amount has been credited to the Complainant’s account. It is apparent that the OP-Bank has allowed the compensation of Rs.45,000/- under the Compensation Policy as annexed herewith under shadow balance till the time of his/her complaint is resorted but not exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint within which the said complaint is resolved and liability of the complainant is fixed. The  customer liability is fixed by the Bank vide letter dated 28.03.2018. In accordance with  compensation policy of the bank issued by HO P&D Department vide Circular No.3432 dated 04.01.2018. The said amount of Rs.45000/- stands credited on 16.05.2018. It is safely assumed that the said amount is allowed to be credited in account of complainant on the basis of above decision. That is why this Commission vide its order dated 17.12.2018 noted that Rs.45000/- had been credited in her account. However, the OP-Bank continued to state that said amount was kept under shadow balance. But the OP had not agitated the order dated 17.12.2018 of this Commission/Forum in subsequent dates. Hence, this Commission respects the order made to this effect on 17.12.2018.

This Commission is satisfied with the decision of the OP-Bank. No substantive documents were provided by the Complainant to further allow the compensation in her favour.

In nutshell this Commission is of the opinion that the OP bank has discharged its liability by paying the Rs.45,000/- compensation for its limited liability under the Compensation Policy. The debit details of alleged unauthroised transactions as given by complainant are not matching with each other completely. The OP provided ATM details with timings as well. In view of the above the two other requests of the complainant are rejected.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.