Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/241/2019

Reshma Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

29 Sep 2021

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.241 of 2019

Date of Instt.:  12.06.2019

Date of Decision: 29.09.2021

 

Reshma Rani aged 37 years, wife of Shri Darshan Singh son of Shri Tota Ram, resident of village Kalsa Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                              …….Complainant.  

                                             Versus

1.State  Bank of India, Branch office Pehowa, District Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

2. State Bank of India, Branch Office Hissar Cantt, District Hissar, through its Branch Manager.

3. State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted by the  State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its local Head Office at Chandigarh.                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                ….…Opposite parties.

 

               Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                     

 

Present:     Sh.  Anand Kumar Ghawri  counsel for the complainant.

                Sh.  R.K.Harit Advocate for OP No.1.

                OP No.2 and 3 ex-parte.

 ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Reshma Rani    against State Bank of India etc. - the opposite parties.

 

2.             In brief, the case of the complainant is that she is having Saving bank account No.65052103285 with the OP No.1 . It is averred that with the said savings bank account, the complainant has linked  mobile No. 98967-63615 of her husband. At the time of any transaction, Shri Darshan Singh, receives message from the bank side regarding the transaction.  It is further averred that on 7.5.2019, husband of the complainant received a telephonic message on his mobile phone regarding withdrawal of Rs.7500/- on 7.5.2019. After receipt of the said message, complainant and her husband were astonished and they went to the Bank and contacted officials and told the incident of withdrawal of Rs.7500/- from her account but the officials on checking the account, told them that Rs.20,000/- has also been withdrawn from the account of the complainant on 6.05.2019 whereas no such transactions have been done by the complainant.  On checking Branch Manager of OP No.1 told the complainant that the transactions have been done at Hissar Cantt and the complainant told the bank officials  that she and her husband never visited Hissar Cantt at any point of time. Thereafter, on 11.5.2019, the complainant visited Hissar where the ATM from which amounts were withdrawn and moved an application to the Police of Police Station, Sadar, Hissar and the police officials assured to take action  but nothing has been done so far.  The complainant also visited the concerned branch and requested them to provide the videography dated 6.5.2019 and 7.5.2019  of the ATM  but they did not supply the same.  The complainant is an Anganwari worker and she could not get the leave and her husband who is went time and again  for 7 days at Hissar and Pehowa banks and police and thus loss of Rs.400 x 7= Rs.2800/- was caused to the husband of the complainant. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and has prayed that the OPs be directed to  pay Rs.27500/- to the complainant alongwith interest, compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to them and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs.  OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is admitted that the amount of Rs.6500/- and Rs.20,000/- has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant through ATM and the  said ATM was in the custody of the complainant. The complainant or his husband or any person who know the PIN number of the  and have ATM car  can only withdraw the amount from the account of the complainant.  The complainant or her husband never contacted or informed the OP in this regard.  It is also submitted that the complainant usually withdraws the amount from the account through different ATMs. However, the concerned branch of the bank can provide the footage of the day to the police if the police will demand it.  All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, jurisdiction and concealment of the true and material have been raised and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The OP No.2 and 3 were duly served upon but failed to appear and contest the complaint. Therefore, OP No.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.07.2019.

 

5.             The complainant in support of her case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed her evidence.

 

6.             On the other hand, OP no.1 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered document Ex.R-1 and closed its evidence.

 

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant  and OP No.1 and have gone through the material available on the case file.

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant is having Saving bank account No.65052103285 with the OP No.1 and the complainant has linked  mobile No. 98967-63615 of her husband  Darshan Singh and her used to receive message from the bank side regarding the transactions.  It is further argued  that on 7.5.2019, husband of the complainant received a telephonic message on his mobile phone regarding withdrawal of Rs.7500/- on 7.5.2019. After receipt of the said message, complainant and her husband were astonished and they went to the Bank and contacted officials and told the incident of withdrawal of Rs.7500/- from her account but the officials on checking the account, told them that Rs.20,000/- has also been withdrawn from the account of the complainant on 6.05.2019 whereas no such transactions have not  been done by the complainant.  On checking Branch Manager of OP No.1 told the complainant that the transactions have been done at Hissar Cantt and the complainant told the bank officials  that she and her husband never visited Hissar Cantt at any point of time. Thereafter, on 11.5.2019, the complainant visited Hissar where the ATM from which amounts were withdrawn and moved an application to the Police of Police Station, Sadar, Hissar and the police officials assured to take action  but nothing has been done so far.  The learned counsel for the  further argued that the complainant also visited the concerned branch and requested them to provide the videography dated 6.5.2019 and 7.5.2019  of the ATM  but they did not supply the same.  The complainant is an Anganwari worker and she could not get the leave and her husband who is went time and again  for 7 days at Hissar and Pehowa banks and police and thus loss of Rs.400 x 7= Rs.2800/- was caused to the husband of the complainant. Lastly it is argued that  the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and has prayed that the OPs be directed to  pay Rs.27500/- to the complainant alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the complainant placed on record two citations’) State Bank of India Vs. P.V.George (2019) AIR (Kerla)140  and ii) Dr. Subhash Chander Vs. State Bank of India, First Appeal No.735 of 2013 decided on 07.03.2014. During course of arguments, the complainant has also placed on record copy of application mark- “A” moved by him to the SHO, Sadar Police Station, Hissar and as per complainant no action has been taken by the police in the matter.

 

9.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has argued that  the amount of Rs.6500/- and Rs.20,000/- has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant through ATM and the  said ATM was in the custody of the complainant. The complainant or his husband or any person who know the PIN number of the  ATM card  can only withdraw the amount from the account of the complainant.  The complainant or her husband never contacted or informed the OP in this regard.  It is also submitted that the complainant usually withdraws the amount from the account through different ATMs. However, the concerned branch of the bank can provide the footage of the day to the police if the police will demand it. Thus, it is argued that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

10.            After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1 the fact that the complainant is having  bank account No. 5052103285 with the OP No.1 and withdrawal of the amount of Rs. Rs.7500/- on 7.5.2019 and withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- 6.05.2019 are not in dispute. The contention of the complainant that the amount was withdrawn from the account of the complainant at Hissar is also not in dispute.  The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that she  also visited the concerned branch and requested them to provide the videography dated 6.5.2019 and 7.5.2019  of the ATM  but they did not supply the same. It is not the case of the OPs that the mobile phone of the complainant was not connected with the account of the complainant. The OP No.1 is silent about the supply of CCTV footage. The OP No.2 and 3 have been proceeded against ex-parte and OP No.2 and 3 were the best persons who could disclose as to why the CCTV Footage have not been supplied to the complainant. Non providing of CCTV footage to the complainant to prove that amount  of Rs.7500/- and Rs.20000/- on 6.5.2019 and 7.5.2019  was withdrawn by the complainant herself, amounts to grave deficiency on the part of OP No.2 and 3.

 

                        State Bank of India Vs. P.V.George (2019) AIR (Kerla)140  wherein it  has been observed by the Hon’ble Kerla High court that “the relationship between a bank and its customers arises out of the contracts entered into between them. Such contracts  exist of general terms applicable to all transactions and also special terms applicable to the special services, if any, provided by the bank to its customers. The relationship between a bank and its customer, in  such if so far as it relates to the money deposited in the bank account of a customer, is that of debtor and creditor. The contractual relationship exits between  a bank and its customers are found on custom and usages. Many of these customs and usages have been recognized by courts and it is now an  accepted principle that to the extent that they have been so recognized, they are implied terms of the contracts between bank and their  customers. Duties of care is an accepted implied term in the contractual relationship that exists between a bank and its customers. It is impossible to define exhaustively the duties of care owned by bank to its customer. It depends upon the nature of service extended by the bank to its customers.  But one thing is certain that where a bank is providing service to its customers owes a duty to its customers to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized withdrawals from their accounts. As a corollary, there is no difficulty in holding that if a customer suffers a loss on account of the transactions not authorized by him, the bank is liable to the customer for the  said loss.”             

             As per policy of the State Bank of India and observations made by the  Hon’ble State Commission in  case Dr. Subhash Chander Vs. State Bank of India, First Appeal No.735 of 2013 decided on 07.03.2014

                “Undisputedly, there is policy of State Bank of India, that is, State Bank of India Compensation Policy (Banking Services)-2013,(Annexure  C/7).The relevant part of clause 4.1 of the policy is reproduced as under:

 

4.1            Unauthorized/Erroneous Debt  xxx     xxx      xxx In case of any amount has been debited in the account of a customer on account of fraudulent transactions the amount will be restored to the affected customer account without delay/demur, once the fraud is established.

Xxx           In case where neither  the bank is at fault nor the customer, but the fault lies elsewhere in the system, the bank will help in restoring the actual amount involved and as a gesture of goodwill and to deal with the customers fairly, will also compensate the customer with Rs.100/- per Rs.5000/- maximum Rs.1000/- for each instance.”

 

11.            From the above discussion and the law laid down in the above cited authorities,  it is established that the amount of Rs.7500/- and Rs.20,000/- on 7.5.2010 and 6.5.2019 respectively was withdrawn from the account of complainant at Hissar. The Ops also failed to prove the  CCTV footage to the complainant and as such the OP No.2 and 3 are proved to be deficient in services on their part and OP No.2 and 3 are liable to pay the amount of Rs.27500/- to the complainant. However, no deficiency in services is made out against OP No.1, therefore, complaint qua OP No.1 deserves to be dismissed.             

12.                  Keeping in view facts  of the case and the law laid down in  above  authorities, we allow the present complaint and  OP No.2 and 3 are    directed to jointly and severally  to pay the amount of Rs.27,500/- to the complainant  within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount of Rs.27500/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order till its realization.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- for the litigation expenses.  It is also made clear that if the OP No.2 and 3  failed to make the compliance of this order within  a period of 45 days from the date of this order, the complainant will  also be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP No. 2 and 3. The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:29.09.2021.                                           (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)     

        Member                       Member.