CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/133/16

          Date of Institution:-    18.03.2016

          Order Reserved on:- 03.04.2024

                         Date of Decision:-      21.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Anita

W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar,

R/o House No.29, ManglaPuri

Phase, Palam Colony,

New Delhi - 110045

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

State Bank of India

Through its Branch Manager

Rz-455-A, Main Road,

Palam Colony, Palam,

New Delhi

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatshe is having saving bank account number 31986820986 with OP which has issued one ATM card bearing no.5196190145730042 to her. On 03.02.2016, she has visited the ATM to withdraw Rs.200/-. She swiped the card and amount was dispensed and mini statement was generated. She was shocked to see the statement that amount of five transactions of Rs.9999x5 hasbeen debited from her account on 19.01.2016. She immediately visited the home branch and reported the matter to Sh. B. P. Arya, Branch Manager. The Branch Manager and Ms. Anjali, Employee of OP, have assured to look into the matter. She has even gave a written complaint to SHO, PS, Palam qua which DD No.33B dated 04.02.2016 was recorded. Another complaint dated 03.03.2016 was given to Joint CP, EOW Cell, MandirMarg, vide DD No.1262 dated 04.03.2016. On 12.02.2016, she has visited the Branch and gave a written letter about the incident. She has sent emails to Chairman as well as to other officials regarding unauthorized transactions of Rs9999x5. She has even demanded CCTV footage from the branch but in vain. The OP has not transferred the said amount to her account which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the written statement to the effect that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has divulged the information about the transaction. The complainant was duly informed through SMS alerts about the transactions. The use of ATM card by other person is invalid. The complainant will be liable if OP comes to know that someone else used the card with the help of complainant or she is involved in the transactions. The report made to the Police station is a matter of record. The complainant has never demanded CCTV footage. There is no merit in the complaint.

3. The complainant has filed rejoinder wherein she has denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
4. The complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version of complainant and placed reliance on the documentsAnnexure-A1 to A8.

5. The OP has filed the affidavit of Ms. Anjali, Branch Manager, in evidencewherein he has corroborated the version of written statement.

6. We have heard the complainant and counsel for the OP and perused the entire material on record.

7. It is admitted fact that complainant is maintaining saving bank account with OP-1 which has issued ATM card to her.

8. The statement of account Annexure-2filed by the complainant shows that five transactions of Rs.9999/- have taken place on 19.01.2016 through ATM card of the complainant and said withdrawal has been shown in the bank account statement of the complainant. The complainant has come to know about the said transaction when she went to ATM booth on 03.02.2016 to withdraw the money and thereafter she has reported the matter to OP and gave a written complaint Annexure-7 to the manager of OP. She has lodged the report dated 04.02.2016 Annexure-C5 with SHO, PS, Palam and thereafter to Joint CP, EOW Cell. She has written emails to the Chairman and other officials of OP but in vain.

9. The five transactions in a row on the same day seem unusual. There is nothing on the record from the OP that SMS alert were sent to the complainant about the said withdrawals. The complainant has even given a written complaint to OP and sent emails to SBI.com to look into the issue.
10. The OP has not taken any action on the complaint of the complainant. The OP should have at least preserved the CCTV footage of the ATM booth from where withdrawal has taken place. The OP could have supplied CCTV footage to the complainant which was not done. The CCTV footage could have been produced by the OP before this Commission. The best possible evidence was in the possession of the OP but same has not been produced. The timely action on the part of OP would have resulted into preservation of the CCTV footage. The inaction is writ large on the part of OP. The operating system of ATM though secured with minimum possibility of manipulation but irregularity in the system cannot be ruled out. The OP will be responsible even if third party has withdrawn the amount through ATM Card.

11. The Circular No.DBR No.LEG.BC.78/09.07.G05/2017-18 dated 06.07.2017 issued by RBI regarding Consumer Protection Limiting liability of customers in unauthorised electronic banking transaction is relevant in this matter because burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transaction lies on the bank. The OPs/Banks are supposed to conduct an inquiry about the unauthorised transactions and send suitable reply to the complainant.

12. RBI have also issued guidelines from time to time to deal with such situations and listed the respective liabilities of the customer and banks in case of internet/online frauds etc. The liability of the customer is zero when unauthorised transaction has been brought to the notice of the bank. The customer is liable when loss has taken place due to his/her negligence.

13. There is nothing on the record from the side of the OP that there is negligence on the part of complainant or that she has shared some banking details with someone. The complainant has informed the OP about the transactions when she came to know about the withdrawals. She has even reported the matter to the Police. She has also sent emails to SBI.com about the said transactions and to take necessary action. The complainant has taken all reasonable precautions as of a prudent person immediately on coming to know about the said withdrawals. There is no negligence on her part. Someone has fraudulently done the transactions through her ATM card and withdrawn the money from her account. Such transactions amount to a criminal offence which is to be dealt by the criminal court and is an independent remedy. The complainant has remedy under this Act with regard to the deficiency in service against the OP. There is inaction on the part of OP on the receipt of complaint from the complainant.

14. The aforesaid discussion shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Support is drawn from R.P. No.2082/2017 titled as Praveen Kumar Jain vs HDFC Bank decided on 28.12.2023 by Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

15. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OP shall pay a sum of Rs.49,995/- along with an interest @7% from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 18.03.2016 till its realization. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 21.05.2024.