Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/238

Uma Devgun - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBOP - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswant Singh

22 Mar 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       238 of 2019

Date of Institution:    26.09.2019

Date of Decision :     22.03.2022

 

Uma Devgon aged about 42 years wife of  Pawan Kumar,  resident of VPO Sukhanwala, Tehsil and  District Faridkot.

                                         

                                                                                                    .........Complainant

Versus   

1. State Bank of India, Branch Mini Secretariat, Faridkot, District Administrative Complex, District Faridkot through its Manager.
2. State Bank of India, 6^th Floor, Local Head Office, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh (U.T.)-160017, through its General Manager.

                                 .............Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Jaswant Singh, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

               Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for Ops,

 

cc no.- 238 of 2019

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.71,000/- wrongly deducted from her bank account no.35551156199 alongwith interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment alongwith litigation expenses.

2                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant holds aforementioned account with OP-1 bank alongwith ATM facility. On 06.05.2019, when complainant withdrew Rs.5000/-from her account and received transaction slip of account statement, she found that balance was quite low in her account. She immediately approached OP-1 and after getting completed the passbook, found that on 26.04.2019 to 29.04.2019, amount of Rs.71,000/-was withdrawn from her account, which she never withdrew. OP-1 told her that these transactions took place at Bhagalpur in Bihar. It is submitted that bank never sent any message regarding withdrawal of amount. She immediately reported the matter to Branch Manager,  who assured to resolve the issue within a week and also assured that amount of Rs.71,000/-fraudulently withdrawn from her account would be returned, but till date she has not received back her amount. She made several requests to OPs to get return her

cc no.- 238 of 2019

amount but all in vain. OPs have been lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Even legal notice served upon OPs by complainant through her counsel bore no fruit. Despite repeated requests, OPs have not done anything needful, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to her. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 01.10.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, the OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in present case that cannot be decided in the summary procedure and this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. It is further averred that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Allegations levelled by complainant and false and complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits  they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is admitted that complainant is having saving account with their bank but it is denied that no message regarding

cc no.- 238 of 2019

withdrawal of amount was sent to complainant. It is submitted that mobile number 70090-19088 was got registered by complainant with her account and regarding all the transactions done by complainant, answering Ops have duly sent messages for withdrawal on this number. In matter in dispute also, messages regarding withdrawal of amount were duly sent to complainant but she did not react to those messages. The detail of messages showing mobile number, delivery status, delivery date and time is also attached. All these messages were duly received by her but she did not respond back. Had the complainant not withdrawn the amount,    then she should have got the card blocked. Complainant has presented wrong facts. It is sternly denied that answering Ops ever assured complainant regarding refund of said amount to her. Moreover, as per rules, regulations and policies of answering OPs, if there is any delay in reporting the matter beyond seven working days, then, it is the full liability of customer and not of bank. Messages regarding withdrawal of amount were duly sent on the registered mobile number of complainant, but she did not respond within seven days. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                              Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of

cc no.- 238 of 2019

complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-8  and then, closed their evidence.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of  Sanjay Bhatia, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Faridkot Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-5 and then also closed the same.

7                                               We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                                 From the careful perusal of record and evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that huge amount of Rs.71,000/-was withdrawn from her account, which she never withdrew. As per OP-1, these transactions occurred at Bhagalpur in Bihar. Complainant has alleged that bank never sent any message regarding withdrawal of amount.  All this came to her notice, when she approached ATM for withdrawing some money and she immediately brought this fact into the notice of  Branch Manager,  who assured to resolve the issue within a week and also assured that her amount of Rs.71,000/-fraudulently withdrawn from her account would be returned, but till date nothing has been

cc no.- 238 of 2019

done. Grievance of the complainant is that despite several visits,  requests and submissions made by complainant and even after issuance of legal notice, OPs have not done anything needful and they have failed to redress her grievance which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. She has prayed for imparting justice to her.

9                                   To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant placed on record document Ex C-3 that is a copy of application given by complainant to Manager, State Bank of India, Mini Secretariat, Faridkot in which it is clearly mentioned that she immediately reported matter regarding withdrawal of Rs.71,000/-from her saving account to OPs. Ex C-4 further proves the pleadings of complainant that she also moved application before S.S.P., Faridkot regarding this illegal withdrawal and  made request to find the fraudulent persons. Through legal notice Ex C-5 complainant has further made prayers to OPs to resolve the issue and get her refund of said amount to which OPs failed to respond. Through her affidavit Ex C-1, she has reiterated her pleadings and has prayed for grant of justice. Ex C-6 is copy of e-mail sent by complainant to Chairman cum Managing Director, State Bank of India for taking necessary action in this regard.

10                                     Complainant has also placed on record document ExC-2 which is copy of letter sent bank to its Higher Authority that reveals the

cc no.- 238 of 2019

grievance of complainant.  In this letter, it is clearly narrated that unauthorized transactions were done by some fraudulent persons from the account of complainant on different dates in the month of April, 2019. In this e-mail letter sent by bank to its higher authority, it is clearly specified and complained by bank that transactions shown therein have not been done by complainant, rather these transactions were fraudulently done by someone in some other state. Complainant lives in Faridkot, Punjab, but withdrawal through these transactions has been committed in Bhagalpur district that falls in the State of Bihar.

11                                           Ld Counsel for complainant has placed on record several news clippings that bring into our notice that Bhagalpur is a place where such offenses are usual.  It is depicted that offenders there are very  expert in making clones of ATM Cards and doing unauthorized withdrawal from the accounts of old persons and women, is not difficult for them. It is impalpable that when information regarding unauthorized fraud committed with complainant is within the knowledge of OPs, then why they have not taken any action against such persons. Ops are fully aware that this withdrawal is totally unauthorized, it is not done by complainant and even despite repeated requests by complainant, they  have not taken any appropriate action against them. It is observed that failure on the part of Ops to protect the money of its account  

cc no.- 238 of 2019

holders and negligence on their part to take quick action against such frauds, amounts to deficiency in service. Ops have failed to place on record any document to prove that what kind of action they have taken to stop such activities. They have just received complaint from complainant and did nothing to redress her grievance. No efforts are made by OPs to find the culprits or to resolve the issue. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove her case. All documents brought on record by her are fully authentic and are beyond any doubt.

12                                  The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant never disclosed his password to anybody. These transactions were made by some third person by playing fraud upon her. ExOP-5 copy of e-mail regarding report submitted by Internal Ombudsman vide which it is disputed that complainant reported regarding these transactions after 7 days of occurrence for  which they are not liable. Ld counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of citation in State Bank of India Vs P. V. George,(Kerala): Law Finder Doc ID #1360707 2019 (1) KLT 505 : 2019 (1) Ker L. J.. 848 : 2019 AIR (Kerala) 140: 2019 (1) KHC 515 wherein it is clearly stated that Unauthorised withdrawal from accounts of customers – SMS alerts cannot be the basis for determining the liability of the customer unless there exists a specific term in the contract between a bank and its customer to the effect that

cc no.- 238 of 2019

the bank would be exonerated from the liability in connection with the unauthorised transactions if the customer does not respond to the SMS alerts. Banking- Unauthorised withdrawal from accounts of customers – If a customer suffers loss on account of the transactions not authorised by customers, bank is liable to customer for the said loss.

13                                                 From the above discussion and evidence and pleadings put forward by parties, it is made out that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is admitted that fraud has been done and bank failed to protect the amount of complainant. Negligence on the part of bank is clearly visible as they have failed to safeguard the amount of complainant and even they have not placed on record any documentary evidence to prove that they have made any single effort to resolve the issue. Bank itself means to rely upon, but it is observed that public money is not safe even in bank accounts. Bank cannot be exonerated from its duty by merely saying that messages were sent to complainant. Had any efforts were made by OPs to check and safeguard the account of complainant, such huge frauds would not have happened. There is nothing on record to show what checks have been imposed or made by OPs to safeguard the public money and what kind of necessary action they should initiate when such issues are brought into their notice. Bank is fully liable to pay the loss suffered by complainant. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed.

cc no.- 238 of 2019

OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.71,000/-to complainant alongwith interest from the month of April 2019 when this fraud was facilitated to the date of final realization. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her alongwith Rs.1000/-for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 71  and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act.  Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 22.03.2022

                                       (Vishav Kant Garg)                 (Param Pal Kaur)                                                 Member                                               Member

                                                   

 

 

                                                                                          cc no.- 238 of 2019

Uma Devgan   Vs    State Bank of India

Present:  Sh Jaswant Singh, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

               Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for Ops,

                Today, the case was fixed up for arguments. Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 22.03.2022

                                       (Vishav Kant Garg)                 (Param Pal Kaur)                                                 Member                                               Member