Date of Hearing: 7th September, 2015
Date of Judgement: Friday, the 11st Day of September, 2015
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 12.03.2014 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah in complaint case being No.HDF 265 of 2013 allowing the same on contest with cost against the Opposite Party No.1 and without cost against the rest directing the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 20.06.2013 as a full and final settlement, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for prolong mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of the order failing with the entire amount would carry interest at the rate of 11% p.a. till full realisation.
Being aggrieved by the said order the Opposite Parties have preferred the instant appeal.
The case of the Complainant, in brief is that the Complainant being a savings account holder under the Opposite Party Bank possessed a ATM Card issued by the Opposite Party Bank in his favour in respect of the said savings bank account. It is alleged by the Complainant that on 20.06.2013, he found that the Opposite Party bank authority wrongly debited Rs.15,000/- from his savings account since his bank pass book clearly showed that the said amount had been withdrawn through the ATM although, in reality, he did not withdraw the same. Accordingly, he prayed for direction upon the Opposite Party to refund Rs.15,000/- along with interest to his savings account, to pay Rs.15,000/- to him towards compensation for causing physical and mental harassment and any other relief admissible under the law and principle of equity.
In course of hearing Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that since the record shows that the withdrawal of amount as ‘successful transaction’ it should be construed as genuine one. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has further submitted that the Complainant/Respondent or any person authorised by him has withdrawn the said amount since without knowing PIN it is not possible for a third person to withdraw any cash through ATM even if he is able to clone ATM/Debit Card issued to the customer. In support of his contention Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has cited the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2015 (I) CPR 143 (Raghabendra Nath Sen and Another – Vs. – Punjab National Bank).
None was found present for the Respondent on repeated calls.
Having heard the submission made by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and on perusal of the documents on record it appears that the Complainant possessed a ATM Card having No.5126520205167336 issued by the Opposite Party Bank in his favour in respect of his S.B. Account being 60960001000292711. On 20.06.2013 he found from his bank statement that an amount of Rs.15,000/- had been withdrawn from his S.B. Account. He stated that he did not withdraw the same and alleged deficiency in service on the part of the bank for such debit of amount from his savings account. However, fact remains that no withdrawal is possible unless the ATM Card issued to Account holder was inserted in the machine followed by using of PIN provided to the customer. In this regard, the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in I (2015) CPJ 254 (Raghabedra Sen and Another – Vs. – Punjab National Bank) is the pointer. In the said decision Hon’ble National Commission has held that no withdrawal from ATM can be made unless ATM Card or Debit Card issued to the Account Holder is inserted in the machine authorized by PIN provided to customer. Even, if amount was withdrawn by a third person he would have done it by using ATM Card provided to him. Therefore, in view of the elaborated procedure involved by Bank does not possible to withdraw money by an authorized person without ATM Card and knowledge of PIN.
The facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the Complainant himself had shown utter negligence to collect his money perhaps, he did not cancel the button leaving the spot of ATM Counter thereby giving space to others to withdraw money from his account. In any case the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the Appellants/Opposite Party has not been proved.
In that view of the matter, the Ld. DCDRF was not justified in allowing the complaint. Therefore, we are constrained to interfere with the order impugned. The order passed by the Ld. DCDRF is based on without legal and proper reasoning and as such the appeal should be allowed.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant appeal is allowed ex-parte but without any order as to costs.
The Judgment/Final Order dated 30.01.2013 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah in Consumer Complaint No.HDF 263 of 2013 is hereby set aside.
