Delhi

East Delhi

CC/255/2016

JATIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of HYDERABAD - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 255/16

 

Jatin Khurana

S/o Shri Trilochan Khurana

R/o A-233, Jhilmil Colony

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 095                                        ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. State Bank of India

Head Off.: Dalmal Building

Jamnalal Bajaj Road

Nariman Point, Mumbai

Maharashtra – 400021

 

Commercial Off.:

Nehru Place

New Delhi – 110 019

Through its Manager

Shjri Arvind Kumar

S/o Shri Prayag Prasad                                                    …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 18.05.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 02.08.2018

Judgement Passed on: 06.08.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Jatin Khurana against State Bank of India (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant was having his saving bank account no. 62212412731 with State Bank of Hyderabad (OP).  In the morning of 18.01.2016, the complainant noticed that on 17.01.2016 at 11.54 p.m. and on 18.01.2016 at 12 a.m. and 12.01a.m., four messages were received on his mobile phone no. 9015393483 that a total of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- at a time) were withdrawn from his bank account from SBG ATM No. S10U005936001, Noida. The ATM card was with the complainant. 

            The complainant made a complaint to customer care centre and requested to block the ATM card immediately.  He made a complaint in writing with OP and subsequently went to P.S. Vivek Vihar and lodged a police complaint for the same. 

            It was stated that the police officials received the CD with footage from OP. He also filed his complaint with Chief Grievances Redress Office, State Bank of Hyderabad, Banking Ombudsman and visiting the concerned authorities for return of Rs. 80,000/-, but all in vain.   

            Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed for directions to OP to return Rs. 80,000/- with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental and psychological tension and harassment and cost of litigation.

3.         In the Written Statement filed on behalf of OP, they have taken various pleas such as no transaction can take place without ATM card and its pin.  The complainant himself handed over his ATM card and disclosed its pin number, hence, the present complaint was not maintainable.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of her complaint. 

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of complaint dated 18.01.2016 (Ex.-CW1/A), copy of DD No. 35B dated 18.01.2016 (Ex.-CW1/B), copy of application dated 30.01.2016 (Ex.-CW1/C), copy of application dated 17.02.2016 (Ex.-CW1/D), copy of FIR (Ex.-CW1/E), copy of application dated 16.05.2016 (Ex.-CW1/F), copy of reply dated 01.01.2017 (Ex.-CW1/G), copy of application dated 22.12.2016 (Ex.-CW1/H) and copy of postal receipts (Ex.-CW1/I colly.).

            In defence, OP have examined Shri Arvind Kumar, Dy. Manager of SBI, Vivek Vihar Branch, who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  He has got exhibited documents such as copies of EJ Log Book (Ex.RW-1/1) and copy of notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. with the reply (Ex.RW-1/2).

6.         We have heard the complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for OP.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that there was no deficiency on their part as the amount which was withdrawn from the bank was withdrawn by using the ATM card which was with the complainant. 

            It is admitted case of the parties that the amount was withdrawn by using the ATM card which was with the complainant.  When the ATM card was with the complainant, though he has not made use of the said ATM, but the fact remains that nobody can know the PIN number and the particulars of ATM card.  It is only by using the ATM card with proper PIN, the cash can be withdrawn.  When ATM card has been used with correct PIN and the amount has been withdrawn from the bank, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of bank. 

            When there was no deficiency on the part of State Bank (OP), the complaint of the complainant deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.   

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President