Haryana

Ambala

CC/382/2011

LT.KIRAN BIR KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

K.C JAIN

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

        Complaint Case No. : 382 of 2011

                    Date of Institution    : 02.12.2011

                      Date of Decision      : 22.02.2017

 

Flt. Lt. Kiran Bir Kaur D/o Sh. Harvinder Singh Sohila, permanent R/o H.No.39, Sham Nagar, Babial, Ambala Cantt (Haryana).

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

State Bank of India through its:-

 

1.         Branch Manager,State Bank of India, Babial Branch Office, Ambala Cantt.

2.         Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Sector-17, Local Head Office, Chandigarh.

 

……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. K.C. Jain, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. H.S. Garg, Adv. for Ops.                      

 

ORDER.

                             

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having a Saving Bank Account No.10670487438 with Op No.1  branch at Ambala Cantt and having facility of ATM-cum-Debit Card No.6220180229400031170. Complainant submitted that she is also having another SB Account no.31023262777 with the branch of State Bank of India at Banglore with facility of ATM cum Debit Card. It has been submitted that on 25.07.2010,  when  complainant was in Bangalore City  and was coming back from Yehlanka  to Jalahali West on coach no.401-A at about 7.30 PM, she found her wallet/purse missing and lost Rs.4000/- cash, both the abovesaid ATM cards and three shopping cards pertaining to Shopper’s Pantaloons and Cross Words. So, the complainant at the earliest approached the Ops at its Hotline no.08026599990 through mobile phone no.9896371728 and reported the loss of the said ATM Cards with a request for hot listing and blocking the operation of the said lost ATMs and as per complainant the call lasted for 12 minutes 54 seconds i.e. from 21:20:35 to 21:33:29 hrs on 25.07.2010. It has been submitted that OP confirmed that the operation of both the lost ATM cum Debit cards had been blocked and hot listed vide ticket no.201007256197138 for the Bangalore saving bank account and ticket no.201007256197142 for Saving Bank Account at Babial Ambala.  Complainant further submitted that  a written complaint to P.S. Gangammanagudi-Jalahali East Bangalore was also made.  Upon which, FIR no.0120 was registered  but of no avail.  It has also been submitted on 27.07.2001 complainant through her father got completed the pass book of her saving bank account no.10670487438 from Op No.1 and she was utterly shocked to know that a sum of Rs.26500/- was debited to her said account by various transactions on 26.07.2010 whereas no such money was withdrawn by her. On enquiry, it was known to her that  the said amount has been withdrawn by someone at Palla Sallu (Saroppanader) Branch of ICICI Bank Bangalore. The matter was reported to Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh on 12.10.2010 but  the said complaint was closed  in terms of Clause 13(c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 vide order dated 03.02.2011 observing that transactions were conducted before hot listing of the cards by the bank, therefore, no deficiency is observed on the part of the Bank. As such, the complainant has submitted that the act of Ops is a clear cut case of negligence and a serious lapse on their part.  Hence, sought for relief as per prayer clause.  

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objection qua maintainability of complaint, suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that card no.6220180229400031170 was hotlisted at 21:59:20 hrs. on 25.07.2010 and withdrawal transactions took place between 21:37:14 hrs. and 21:40:01 hrs on 25.07.2010. Hence all the transactions  took place before hotlisting the card.  It has been further submitted that due to maintenance activities at Bank’s end, these transactions were reflected in her account on 26.07.2010. Therefore, it is incorrect that successful transaction at ATM had taken place after ATM card was blocked. The OP has submitted that it is manifest from the records that successful transactions were made by the complainant prior to hotlisting of the ATM Card. The time mentioned by the complainant regarding intimation for hotlisting and blocking the operation of the said ATM card was incorrect.  It has also been stated  by the OP that ATM-cum-Debit Card was successfully operated upon by the complainant before her request for hotlisting the card and there is no fraudulent  withdrawals of the money  from the account of complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.   The Op has submitted that complainant had already availed the alternative remedy for redressal of her grievance. Therefore, the consumer complaint does not lie.  It has been submitted that the Op took about 25 minutes  and 51seconds from 21:33:29 hrs. to 21:59:20 hrs. on 25.07.2010 to block and hotlist the operation of lost ATM Cards.  Rather the hotlisting  was made immediately on request at 21:59:20 hrs. The ticket numbers  mentioned in the para were followed by blocking the cards at 21:59:20 hrs. There is no delay in blocking and hotlisting of the operation of lost ATM Cards. Hence, a prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs has been made.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit  of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C1 to C-12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered affidavit Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 & R-2 and closed their evidence. 

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.  Counsel for the complainant has argued that on 25.07.2010 during travelling from Bangalore City, her wallet/purse missed which was containing  around Rs.4000/- cash and both the abovesaid ATM-cum-Debit Cards and three shopping cards pertaining to Shopper’s Pantaloons and Cross Words. So, immediately after the incident, the complainant intimated the Ops at their hotline number at 21:20:35 hrs. to 21:33:29 hrs. for blocking the operation of the said lost ATM Cards. But on 27.07.2010, complainant was surprised that to know that a sum of Rs.26,500/- (three transactions) was debited to her account whereas no such withdrawals has been done by her.  The matter was reported to police as well as complaint made to the Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh but of no avail. Thus the counsel for complainant has argued that Ops are deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant.

                        On the other hand, counsel for complainant has argued that as soon as they received intimation from the complainant qua hotlisting/blocking of the operation of said ATM Card, they immediately act upon that and blocked the same but despite that if any amount of the complainant has been withdrawn from the account of complainant then it has happened due to lapse on the part of complainant as she would have told the ATM PIN to someone and probably who have misused the same.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Counsel for OP has placed reliance on case law rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 07.11.2014 titled Harjit Singh Vs. The Punjab National Bank in Revision Petition No.3945 of 2014 wherein it has been held that “perusal of complaint would show that either the complainant had handed over ATM card and disclosed ATM Pin to stranger who entered ATM booth or he had himself used ATM pin. Therefore, incident took place solely on account of negligence of complainant-Impugned order was sustainable  and required no interference.

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that the first and foremost question arises before us for consideration is that whether the amount so alleged by the complainant has withdrawn from the account of complainant before the time period she requested the OP Bank for blocking her lost ATM Card.

                        Complainant to prove her case has placed on record Call Data Record of Airtel Company (Annexure C-2) which reveals that on 25.07.2010 at 21:20:35 complainant made a call to the OP Bank and also produced document (Annexure C-3) Debit Card Management System which reveals that on 25.07.2010 at  21:59:28 call of complainant has been received  for hotlisting the lost ATM Card. He has also placed on record  document Annexure C-6 SBI ATM Web Interface whereby reveals that transaction  date from account no.10670487438  pertaining to complainant for Rs.5000/-, 10000/-,10,000/- & Rs.5000/- is 25.07.2010 at 21:37:14, 21:38:25, 21:39:14 and 21:40:01 respectively. But the counsel for OP has vehemently denied  the version of complainant that  her call received by them  at 21:20:35 and to controvert this fact, they have placed on record document Debit Card Management System (Annexure R-1 also placed on record by complainant as Annexure C-3) whereby it is revealed that  the hotlist date and time are  25.07.2010 at 21:59:28 and also placed on record document SBI ATM Web Interface (Annexure R-2 also placed on record by complainant as Annexure C-6) whereby it is revealed that the amounts of Rs.5000/-, 10000/-,10,000/- & Rs.5000/-  have been withdrawn from the account of complainant on  25.07.2010 at 21:37:14, 21:38:25, 21:39:14 and 21:40:01 respectively. Counsel for OP has drawn our attention towards the decision of Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh (annexure C-8) wherein observation has been made that “the withdrawal from ATM cannot be effected without using correct PIN. Besides, transactions were conducted before hot-listing of card by the bank, therefore no deficiency is observed on the part of the Bank and closed the complaint in terms of clause 13(c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 as per the order of the Banking Ombudsman.”

6.                     In view of the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that  the OP has hotlisted the ATM of complainant at 21:59:28 hrs. on 25.07.2010 as soon as they received the information from complainant allegedly at 09:20:35 hrs. but the complainant has not rebutted  the same with the help of cogent evidence. Further we endorse the observation dated 03.02.2011 made by Banking Ombudsman that without using correct PIN of ATM, amount cannot be withdrawn. Accordingly, the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:  22.02.2017

                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                     (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT    

 

                                                                                                             Sd/-

                         (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER