Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

120/2014

Mrs.Sumathi Natarajan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rep by its Manager,State Bank of India, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.Elango

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on  :  18.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  15.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY  THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.120/2014

 

Mrs.Sumathi Natarajan,

G1 Ramaniyam Citadel,

No.1 P.A.Koil Street,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.

                                                                                       .... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	State Bank of India represented by its Manager, Y-211, Second Avenue, Anna Nagar West, Chennai- 600 040.
	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  : 24.06.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/S.R.Elango, K.Sathiyaraj

Counsel for Opposite party                      :M/s.C.P.R.Kamaraj

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is having a Savings Bank Account No.00000010408454313 at Anna Nagar West, Chennai-40. The said account is a joint account with her husband and they are having ATM cum Debit Card facility in respect of that account. The Complainant had balance on 26.12.2013 a sum of Rs.63,354.54/-. On 03.01.2014 the Complainant checked balance in her account through online and she was shocked to note that a sum of Rs.60,000/- was withdrawn through the ATM withdrawals,  each time a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 27.12.2013. Four ATM withdrawals of Rs.10,000/- each was made at Irumbulliyur, Chennai and Two ATM withdrawals of Rs.10,000/- each was at SBT Bazzar, Chennai. The Complainant preferred a complaint to the opposite party on 03.01.2014 to take action and to credit the withdrawn amount from her account. Again on 05.01.2014 she gave a complaint before the Commissioner of Police and also to the banking ombudsman. The police issued a certificate dated 26.02.2014 to the Complainant that the transactions of the Complainant was done by the authorized customer but by some fraudsters with criminal intent. The CCTV provided all ATM. The opposite party has not adhered their own terms and conditions. The opposite party has not shown any interest to find out the real culprit.  Hence the opposite party committed deficiency in service and caused mental agony to the complaint. Therefore, the Complainant filed this complaint to refund the amount withdrawn through ATM and compensation with cost of the complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          All the ATM machines are automated and on production of ATM Card and correct PIN number, the ATM machine automatically will disburse the money to the drawer. Hence, it is the bounded duty of the customer to keep their Debit Cards safely and to maintain the PIN numbers for the same card in confidentiality. In this case, the ATM card is very much in possession of the Complainant and the opposite party has nothing to do with the tempering of the said Card. It is the Complainant should have handled and kept it safe. This opposite party cannot be held responsible for the fault of the complaint. The opposite party and the Camera footage were also given to the concerned Police officials. The complaint was referred to the Special Committee of the opposite party which is exclusively constituted to deal with such ATM complaints. Further the Complainant already lodged a Criminal complaint and concerned records were handed over to the said police as well to the above Complainant. Finally, the Banking Ombudsman has given a verdict in favour of the opposite party Bank. The ATMs of all banks are provided with Guards from the very beginning as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and not as per the directions of the Police Department and Cameras are also installed as per the rules only. In fact with that only in this case also it was found by the opposite party as well by the police that the Complainant did not withdraw the money. As admitted by the Complainant, the opposite party has taken all precautionary measures to prevent and defraud in ATMs by providing proper guards and CCTV Cameras, but it is the Customer who has to take due diligent care in handling their Cards safely and protecting their pass words and to change the Pass Words in regular intervals as cautioned by the Bankers. Hence, this opposite party has taken all the best efforts to prevent any ATM Card frauds with their best technology and cannot be held responsible for the negligence. Hence the opposite party prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4.POINT:1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant was having a Savings Account with the opposite party and the said account was maintained by the opposite party and the Ex.A1 Statement of Account issued by the opposite party to the Complainant and as per such statement a sum of Rs.60,000/- was withdrawn by the ATM withdrawals at each ATM withdrawal is at Rs.10,000/- on 27.07.2013.

          5. According to the Complainant the amount was withdrawn on 27.12.2013 was done by some miscreants and hence she preferred a complaint Ex.A2 to the opposite party and she also preferred Ex.A3 complaint  to the Commissioner of Police and the Central Crime Branch Police issued Ex. A4 certificate that the Enquiry conducted in to the allegation revealed that unknown miscreants had stolen the data from the Debit/ Card and after cloning it withdraw money from the account and therefore the opposite party committed deficiency in service.

          6. The opposite party contended that the ATM Card is in very much in possession of the Complainant. The Complainant should handle the card safely and the opposite party cannot be held responsible for the fault of the complainant and all diligent care has taken by the opposite party in all ATM’s and therefore prays to dismiss the complaint.

          7. Admittedly the Complainant had not withdrawn Rs.60,000/-.  On 27.12.2013 it was done by some miscreants. The ATM Card is very much in possession of the Complainant and she had divulged anything about the ATM Card to 3^rd person. The ATM machine is provided by the opposite party for service to its customer. When the Complainant had not withdrawn the amount of Rs.60,000/-, and the same was done by somebody else. The bank is only liable for such fraud transactions because, the Complainant as a customer utilizing the service of the opposite party and she should not suffered with loss. The opposite party would contend that he had provided CCTV footage to the police. However the police was unable to trace the person. Ex.A4 certificate issued by the police clearly establishes that unknown miscreants done such act. Having the opposite party provides service to its customer they should take all diligent steps to prevent miscreants to withdraw the money from the account of others. Therefore, we hold that the opposite party only committed deficiency in service.  

8.POINT NO:2

          An amount of Rs.60,000/- was debited from the Complainant’s account maintained by the opposite party. Therefore, the Complainant suffered monetary loss of Rs.60,000/- and it would be appropriate to order the opposite party to refund such  amount to the Complainant. By losing money for this period the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for a mental agony besides a sun of Rs.5,000/-  towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amounts shall be payable to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amounts shall carry 9%  interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 15^th day of September 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 03.01.2014                   Statement of Account of the Complainant

Ex.A2 dated 03.01.2014                   Complainant’s representation to the opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 05.01.2014                   Complainant‘s representation to Police

                                                    Department

 

Ex.A4 dated 26.02.2014                   Certificate issued by the Police Department

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

                                      …..NIL ….

 

         

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT