| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM FATEHGARH SAHIB Consumer Complaint No. : 67 of 24.10.2017 Date of Decision : 15.04.2019 Kashmir Singh aged about 68 years, son of Sh.Beli Ram, Resident of House No.2/158, Mohalla Preet Nagar, City Bazar, Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. ……..Complainant Versus State Bank of India (Main), Branch I.T.I. Chowk, Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager. …..Opposite Party Complaint Under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Quorum Sh. Kuljit Singh, President. Sh. Inder Jit, Member Present : Sh.G.S. Sandhu, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.B.L. Gupta, Advocate counsel for OP ORDER By Kuljit Singh, President - Complainant – Kashmir Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
- The complainant is having joint Saving Accounts No.55107688511 and 55107652119 with OP and complainant has also having ATM cards facility linked with said saving accounts, provided by OP. On 03.09.2017, complainant note down that his ATM card of said account No.55107652119 was not working and on 04.09.2017, the complainant went to OP and met there with concerned clerk – Suresh Kumar and disclosed him about the said problem of ATM card and said Clerk-Suresh Kumar took the slip of ATM card from complainant and also took his mobile No.94647-74574 from complainant and he told the complainant that after 30 minutes, they will inform him about the above said problem of ATM card of complainant. On 04.09.2017, after about one hours, complainant received a telephonic/mobile call from Mobile No.96619-18855 and the person who made telephonic call, told complainant that he is calling/taking from SBI – OP and was informed through this telephonic call that his above said ATM card is defective, so far that, the ATM card is not working. In the meantime, he also informed that another ATM card of complainant is also defective and is not working. The said person, who made this telephonic call to the complainant, demanded the details of 19 digits of said both the ATM cards of complainant and also demand the Adhaar Card Number of complainant and complainant had given the ATM card numbers to that person as the complainant was under impression that the above said person, who made the telephonic call to him, is a bank employee. Thereafter, within 30 minutes, said ATM cards of complainant were swapped ten times and amount of Rs.50,000/- was debited from said account of complainant i.e. 55107688511. Apart from it, the amount of Rs.14,000/- was also debited from another account number 55107652119 of complainant. In this way, in total Rs.64,000/- was debited from the said accounts of complainant through said ATM cards of complainant by fraudulently. Thereafter, on same day, complainant again received a telephonic call from Telephone No.01412422542 through which, the complainant was informed that somebody is regularly withdrawing the amounts from his said both joints accounts and complainant was also advised to close his said accounts. The complainant visited to OP on same day and informed about the said illegal transaction and tried to inquire about same, but bank did not take any heed. Complainant got blocked his said joint accounts and got stopped the payment of same. But, complainant was shocked, when he came to know about said illegal transaction. Complainant may times received the telephonic call from said number but complainant ignored the same. On 05.09.2017, then complainant was sitting in Police Station City Bassi Pathana, complainant again received telephonic call from Mobile No.96619-18855, then immediately complainant handed over his mobile to police official, then the person, who made the telephonic call, disconnected the phone call. Complainant also moved an application dated 06.09.2017 to S.S.P., Fatehgarh Sahib regarding said mater. The complainant also got lodged a Report dated 05.09.2017 in police Station City Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, but police did not take any action on said application. On 13.09.2017, complainant also moved an application to OP and requested the official of OP to inquire about said matter, but till date, OP did not take any action on said application. Lastly, it is prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.64,000/- to complainant alongwith interest till actual and final realization and sought directions to OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
- Notice of complaint was issued to OP and the complaint is contested by the OP, who filed written reply. In reply, OP raised preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction, complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands, as the complainant is himself guilty of his said act and conduct but he is intentionally blaming/indulging falsely & illegally, the OP. Complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint. On merits, there is no dispute of Saving accounts of complainant and his ATM card facility. Complainant met to Sh.Suresh Kumar, Bank employee of OP Bank on 04.09.2017 and told him that his ATM card is not working in ATM machine and that time, the said clerk on account of over busyness of Bank’s work and poor connectivity problem, only asked the complainant to come on next day. Suresh Kumar – clerk had not taken any slip of ATM card or mobile number of complainant and had not told him that he will be informed after 30 minutes on phone. The alleged mobile call from alleged number No.96619-18855 allegedly received by him, after alleged about 1 hour was not made from the bank by any bank officials and said alleged calls have no link or concern with the Bank working. Whatever alleged conversation alleged to have taken place between the complainant and alleged mobile holder of said alleged number have no concern or connection with any Bank Officials. There is no such like practice on the part of Bank or any of officials and neither any law provides to the said official to call the customer on phone for receiving any information about the ATM. At the time of issuing the ATM card, it is made known to the consumer/customer that ‘do not share the PIN code & other details with anybody’. Even message alerts are being sent after OTP code about this fact that ‘Not to share the PIN code & other details with anybody”. The OP bank has no knowledge about the alleged swapping and alleged withdrawals, as alleged by complainant. No bank official has ever demanded details of the 19 digits & Aadhar card of both ATM’s of complainant on any mobile as alleged. When the complainant visited the bank on 04.09.2017, on his request as desired by him, both the joint accounts were blocked from operation. It is admitted that letter dated 13.09.2017 has been received from complainant by bank but there was no involvement on the part of any officials/employee of bank. The OP is not liable to refund any alleged amount of Rs.64,000/- or interest. Other averments of complainant are denied and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs.
- In order to prove the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence true copies of documents i.e. joint account pass book Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, application dated 06.09.2017 Ex.C-3, application dated 13.09.2017 Ex.C-4, news item Mark-A, his Affidavit Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal, the counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Vinod Kumar Midda, B.M. of SBI Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Suresh Kumar officer SBI, Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined written arguments of both the parties and the record of the case very carefully.
- The question for determination before the Forum is that whether this Forum has jurisdiction or not. From the record, it is transpired that complainant is having his saving account with OP who having run their business in the District Fatehgarh Sahib. So this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute of present complaint.
- There is not dispute of accounts of complainant with OP and availing of ATM facilities. The learned counsel for OP submitted that there was no question of any call being made to complainant by any official of their bank. The learned counsel stated that the transaction in question, could be done only, if the person making the transaction was aware of the debit card number, the expiry date, the PIN as well as the DVV number. This whole information must have been given by complainant himself to some other person, who could be instrument in making the transaction in question. Learned counsel for OP has argued that process of obtaining the ATM card has been explained. It is stated that a customer has to come physically to the bank to take the secret PIN. The card etc are sent by registered post, but the PIN is delivered in person. There was no question of PIN having been delivered by any bank official on phone. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to the manual delivered to the customers by the bank, in which the whole process of issuing the card/PIN etc. had been explained and the necessary precautions to be observed by the complainants had also been listed. It has been stated clearly in the said manual that the bank has no liability for unauthorized use of the card and the responsibility is fully upon the card holder. In the same manual, the customer are advised not to disclosed secret information to anybody.
- Counsel for complainant stated that he had not divulged information about his card or PIN to anybody. On the next day of the incident, he had personally gone to his bank branch, and on their advise, had lodged complaint with Police. The bank was clearly deficient in service as they made no efforts to check the fraud inflicted upon him. Moreover, it was the duty of the Bank to take up the matter with local police and then ensure follow-up with them. The main issue that requires consideration in the matter is 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 different occasions on the same day. The bank has simply taken the plea that once the ATM card was issued to the complainant and a PIN was provided, it was the duty of the card holder to change the PIN immediately, and the bank was not liable in any manner, if any fraudulent transaction had taken place from that account. The OP stated that there was no record or evidence of any call having been made by any official of the bank to the complainant. On the other hand, a perusal of complaint indicates that Rs.50,000/- and Rs.14,000/- was swapped on two occasions and these amounts were debited to the account of complainant. The complainant received message also in respect of these two transactions from the bank. It is clear from the facts on record that the Bank flatly refused to even look into the matter what to speak of making any investigation into the same. Once the specific transaction number had been given in the message received from Bank itself to complainant, the bank could have very well verified the genuineness of these transaction, after establishing contact with the person or merchant establishment in possession of the said transaction, but nothing of that sort was done. In this way, an adverse inference drawn against the OP and OP is liable to deficient in service qua complainant and OP is also liable to pay to the complainant. We also place reliance on judgment dated 03.05.2017 passed in RP No.3073 of 2016 by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as State Bank of India Vs Dr.J.C.S. Kataky.
- Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the complaint, this complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed to pay Rs.64,000/- deducted from the account of complainant. Further, the Op is directed to pay compensation Rs.5,000/- for harassment.
- Entire compliance of above said order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- Copy of order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to record room
Pronounced: 15.04.2019 (Kuljit Singh) President (Inderjit) Member | |
