Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/63/2017

Labh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

28 Mar 2018

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 63 of 2017

                                                     Date of institution : 04.10.2017                                   

                                                     Date of decision    : 28.03.2018

Labh Singh aged 58 years son of Sadhu Singh, resident Dusehra Ground, Ward No.4, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

State Bank of India Branch Bye Pass Road, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Manger.

…..Opposite Party

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.               

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                        Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        None for the complainant.

                      Opposite party exparte.

 

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Labh Singh aged 58 years son of Sadhu Singh, resident Dusehra Ground, Ward No.4, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant has a bank account bearing No.55070389142 in State Bank of India, Amloh, OP No.1. On 06.08.2017, the complainant received a telephonic call on his mobile No.9646746480 from mobile No.91-75496-40656 and the person, who disclosed him to be employee of State Bank of India, told the complainant that the bank is in need of ATM card number to link the same with Adhaar and he inquired from the complainant regarding his SBI Bank account number and ATM number. The complainant disclosed his Bank Account number and ATM number to the said employee/person of SBI.  Thereafter the said person withdrew total amount of Rs.45,490/- in five terms from his bank account.  The amount of the complainant was withdrawn due to negligence of management of Electric transactions of State Bank of India and the employees of State Bank of India are responsible for illegal withdrawal of amount of complainant. The complainant requested the OP to refund the said amount to the complainant but they did not listen to the genuine requests of the complainant and totally refused to pay the said amount to the complainant. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to pay Rs.45,490/-, which was withdrawn illegally and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP, but it chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, the OP was proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence copy of newspaper cutting Ex. C-1, copy of complaint lodged in police station Ex. C-2 and his affidavit Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence.
5. It has been pleaded by the Ld. counsel for the complainant in the complaint that the Bank be directed to pay Rs.45,490/- withdrawn fraudulently by the person, who had asked the bank account number and ATM PIN number of the complainant beside compensating the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
6. After going through the pleadings and the documents placed on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant could not have disclosed the ATM number/Bank Account Number to the person on phone pretending to be bank official. ATM secret number is the property only of the Account Holder and it is never to be disclosed to anybody as so advised frequently by the Bank/Electronic Communications of the Bank. On the contrary, the complainant had himself disclosed the ATM number/Bank account number to the unknown person. In view of this act of the complainant, the matter cannot be adjudicated without elaborate evidence and hence the complainant is entitled to seek his remedy before the appropriate Court of law as held by Hon'ble State Commission Punjab in case titled as Savitri Devi Vs Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport,2015(3) CLT 415(PB). 
7.  Accordingly in view of aforementioned decision, we are of the opinion that in the present case also, elaborate evidence involving cross-examination of witnesses is required for proper adjudication of the case. Thus we would not like to go into the merits of the case. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of law for redressal of his grievance.  The complainant is also entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. All the original and requisite documents be returned to the parties. A copy of the same be retained. Parties to bear the cost.
8. The order was reserved on 22.03.2018. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:28.03.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)               President

 

(Inder Jit)             Member