| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 380 of 2015 Date of Institution: 10.06.2015 Date of Decision: 20.01.2016 Mrs.Amanpreet Kaur wife of S.Rajbir Singh, resident of House No. 53, Abadi Nabipur, Village: Fatehgarh Shukar Chak, District Amritsar. Complainant Versus State Bank of India, Sri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Branch Chhapa Ram Singh, Vallah, District Amritsar through its Branch Manager. Opposite Party Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Inderjit Lakra, Advocate For the Opposite Party: Sh. B.S.Sachdeva, Advocate Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Amanpreet Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she is account holder of Opposite Party having account No.32893570645. Complainant alleges that she was issued two ATM cards by the Opposite Party against the said account in her name. On 15.2.2015, said two ATM cards of the complainant were lost and accordingly, she reported the matter to Opposite Party through on-line message on that very day and she was issued ticket No.8151302135818047 and 81515021957446279. On reporting the matter of loss of said ATM cards by the complainant, it was the duty of the Opposite Party to enter it in their system. On the next day i.e. 16.2.2015 the complainant moved an application to the Opposite Party stating the aforesaid facts and requested them to issue new ATM cards to her, but she was informed that through ATM transaction, the amount of Rs.12,000/- through 3 transactions was withdrawn out of her account i.e. Rs.5000/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- on 16.2.2015 within the time of about 5-6 minutes as shown in the statement of ATM transaction issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant. This act on the part of the Opposite Party amounts to great negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to credit Rs.12,000/- in the account of the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. As informed by the complainant to the Opposite Party, she had marked secret PIN on the ATM card allegedly lost by her itself and as per clear instructions given by the bank to each and every ATM card holder, they are required to keep the said PIN Secret and not to disclose the same to anyone so that no one can take undue benefit of the said disclosure in the event of loss of the ATM card, but the complainant negligently had marked the secret PIN given to her by the bank on the ATM card itself and as such the complainant can not get any benefit out of her own wrong. Upon receipt of the complaint, the complainant was provided with video footage of the concerned ATM machine where the card allegedly lost was operated upon and she was advised to lodge FIR with the concerned police station about the said illegal withdrawals, if any, but the complainant intentionally did not lodge the FIR knowingly well that the investigation to be made by the police shall yield results against her only. Rather the complainant has filed the present complaint unnecessarily which otherwise is pre mature as lodging of the FIR would have established that the cards have actually been lost and are not in possession of the complainant herself. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.G.K.Garg Branch Manager Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant is account holder of saving bank account No.32893570645 with Opposite Party-Bank. The complainant was issued two ATM cards by the Opposite Party-Bank against the aforesaid account in the name of complainant. Complainant alleges that on 15.2.2015, both the aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant were lost and she reported the matter to Opposite Party through on-line message on that very day and she was issued ticket No.8151302135818047 and 81515021957446279, thereby the complainant told the Opposite Party on-line to block the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards and to enter the same in their system. On 16.2.2015, the very next day, the complainant moved an application to the Opposite Party Ex.C5stating the aforesaid facts and requested them to issue new ATM cards to her. However, she was informed that through ATM transaction, the amount of Rs.12,000/- through 3 transactions was withdrawn out of her account i.e. Rs.5000/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- on 16.2.2015 within a span of about 5-6 minutes as shown in the statement of ATM transaction issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant Ex.C3. Complainant submitted that she never withdrew any amount through ATM as ATM cards of the complainant were lost on 15.2.2015 and she had duly informed the Opposite Party Bank authority through on-line message. The withdrawal of aforesaid amount from the account of the complainant through ATM on 16.2.2015 shows that Opposite Party Bank had failed to enter such information of loss of ATM cards, in their system. As such, this act on the part of the Opposite Party amounts to great negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice qua the complainant, as a result of which, the complainant has suffered loss. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that each and every ATM card holder is required to keep the PIN Secret and not to disclose the same to anyone so that no one can take undue benefit of the said disclosure in the event of loss of the ATM card, but the complainant negligently had marked the secret PIN given to her by the bank on the ATM card itself and as such the complainant can not get any benefit out of her own wrong. Upon receipt of the complaint, the complainant was provided with video footage of the concerned ATM machine where the card allegedly lost was operated upon and she was advised to lodge FIR with the concerned police station about the said illegal withdrawals, if any, but she did not lodge the FIR and filed present complaint. The reporting of the loss of the ATM cards by the complainant with Customer Care Number is matter of record. The complainant has failed to lodge the FIR with the police authority, therefore, it may be that ATM cards are still in possession of the complainant herself and before the system could block the said ATM cards, the alleged withdrawal has been made by the complainant herself. Therefore, the Opposite Party is not liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- allegedly withdrawn from the account of the complainant through aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant by some person on 16.2.2015. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant had saving bank account with Opposite Party Bank bearing No.32893570645. The complainant was issued two ATM cards by the Opposite Party-Bank against the aforesaid account in her name. On 15.2.2015, both the aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant were lost and she reported the matter to Opposite Party through on-line message on the same day i.e. 15.2.2015 with the request to block the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant and she was issued tickets No.8151302135818047 and 81515021957446279. Once the customer i.e. complainant in this case, reported the matter to the Opposite Party through online message on 15.2.2015 regarding the loss of her ATM cards with the request to block the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards and she was issued ticket No.8151302135818047 and 81515021957446279, it becomes the duty of the Opposite Party to block the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards immediately without any delay. But the Opposite Party failed to block the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant on 15.2.2015. Resultantly, on 16.2.2015 some person withdrew Rs. 12000/- through 3 transactions from the account of the complainant by using ATM cards of the complainant i.e. Rs.5000/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- at 08:55:51, 08:59:22 and 09:01:12 hours respectively as is evident from the ATM transactions statement Ex.C3 issued by the Opposite Party Bank to the complainant. Had the Opposite Party blocked the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant on receipt of the message from the complainant online on 15.2.2015, the aforesaid 3 transactions could not have been made by some unscrupulous person on the ATM cards of the complainant. So, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank for not blocking the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant immediately on receipt of on-line message of the complainant regarding loss of her both the ATM cards and request for blocking the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards.
- As regard withdrawal of Rs.12,000/- from the account of the complainant after the loss of ATM cards of the complainant on 16.2.2015, it is clear that the PIN code of the ATM cards are issued to the customers with clear instructions given by the bank to keep the said PIN Secret and not to disclose the same to anyone so that no one can take undue benefit of the said disclosure in the event of loss of the ATM card, but in the present case, the complainant might have disclosed the PIN code of her ATM cards to some person may be related to the complainant, that is why said person succeeded in making the aforesaid 3 transactions whereby withdrawing Rs.12000/- from the account of the complainant after stealing/ removing the ATM cards from her possession, without or against her consent. Further it is a lapse on the part of the complainant that when the Opposite Party has provided video footage of the use of the concerned ATM cards of the complainant on 16.2.2015 with the request to the complainant to lodge FIR with the police authorities so that it may be investigated as to who has withdrawn the aforesaid amount from the account of the complainant by using the aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant on 16.2.2015. But the complainant did not lodge FIR with the police or with any other higher authority, may be with malafide intention, that had she lodged the FIR with the police, the person known to the complainant may be her relative, would have been involved in the withdrawal of the aforesaid amount from the account of the complainant on 16.2.2015 because only a known person to the complainant could have knowledge of the PIN code of the ATM cards, so the Opposite Party bank can not be held liable to pay this amount of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant.
- However, the Opposite Party Bank is certainly in deficiency of service for not blocking the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant on receipt of on-line message from the complainant on 15.2.2015 and in receipt thereof, the Opposite Party-Bank had already issued ticket No.8151302135818047 and 81515021957446279 confirming that Opposite Party has received on-line message from the complainant on 15.2.2015 regarding the loss of her both ATM cards and also request from the complainant to block the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant on 15.2.2015, as a result of which some unscrupulous person succeeded in withdrawing Rs.12000/- from the account of the complainant by using the aforesaid ATM cards on 16.2.2015. Had the Opposite Party Bank blocked the functioning of the aforesaid ATM cards of the complainant on 15.2.2015, said unscrupulous person would not have succeeded in withdrawing the aforesaid amount from the account of the complainant by using lost ATM cards of the complainant on 16.2.2015. Therefore, the Opposite Party Bank is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
- Resultantly, we partly allow this complaint with costs and the Opposite Party Bank is directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Opposite Party Bank is also directed to pay costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 20.01.2016. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
