Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/2397

ASHARAM PATHIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

21 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2397 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 17.09.2019 passed in C.C.No.330/2018 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

ASHARRAM PAATHYA,

S/O LATE SHRI RAMCHARAN PAATHYA,

R/O LINE NUMBER 53/08, BIRLA NAGAR,

GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                                                     …   APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

BRANCH-INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

TAANSEN ROAD, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                        ...   RESPONDENT.   

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                        :         ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR.SRIKANT PANDEY                 :      MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 21.05.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President: 

                   The complainant/appellant being dissatisfied with the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.330/2018, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed, has filed this appeal.

2.                Facts of the case in short as stated by the complainant are that he is having savings bank account no.30095963944 with the opposite

 

-2-

party /respondent-State Bank of India, Branch Industrial Estate, Tansen Road Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’) having ATM card facility.  It is submitted by the complainant that his daughter is residing at Ahmedabad and he went for his treatment to Ahmedabad on 11.07.2018. It is submitted that on 18.07.2018 at 7:45 pm he received a phone call that full balance was withdrawn from his account and only Rs.1,000/- are remaining and the unknown caller asked the ATM number which he refused to give. When he checked the balance amount on ATM he found that on 18.07.2018 a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- was withdrawn from his account whereas the ATM was with him. Thereafter he came to Gwalior on 20.07.2018 and approached the home branch on 21.07.2018 to lodge complaint where he was asked to file written complaint. Since 22.07.2018 was Sunday, he lodged written complaint with the bank only on 23.07.2018.

3.                He also made complaint to Superintendent of Police, Gwalior on 24.07.2018 but no action was taken.  The complainant alleged that despite he was having ATM card, the amount of Rs.30,000/- was withdrawn from his account and on complaint being made, the bank did not credit the said amount in his account which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of opposite party-bank. The complainant  therefore alleging deficiency in service against the bank

-3-

approached the District Commission seeking refund of Rs.30,000/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs Rs.4,000/-.

4.                The opposite party/respondent-bank in its reply before the District Commission submitted that as per directions of RBI, by way of SMS and newspaper it is broadcasted time to time to the custormers not to share ATM Debit Card, PIN and OTP details to anyone. On 18.07.2018 the complainant made transaction at 19:47 hours through Airtel Money (Point of sale) in which the ATM Card number of the complainant was displayed. On 18.07.2018 there was transaction of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- from ATM. On 18.07.2018 there was transaction of Rs.5,000/- via ATM Cum Debit Card through (POS) point of sale.  In all the aforesaid four transactions, the ATM Card Number of the complainant was displayed. The data regarding aforesaid transactions received from the switch centre is R-1.

5.                It is further submitted that the personal details of ATM Card which were known to the complainant only and therefore he made the aforesaid transactions.  The complainant disputed the two transactions made on 18.07.2018 for Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- The complainant has filed C-5 which is SMS alert in which it is specifically stated that “Thank you for using your SBI Debit Card XX 1837 Purchase worth Rs.25,000/- POS at Air Tel Money, if not done by you, forward this SMS to Mobile No.”

-4-

If the complainant did not make the aforesaid transactions he could have immediately forward the message to the switch centre of the bank but the complainant failed to do so. As per bank record, all the transactions were shown successful. The complainant not disputed the remaining two transactions whereas all the four transactions were made by the complainant’s ATM Card. It is submitted that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party-bank. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-

6.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint as aforesaid.

7.                Heard. Perused the record.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the complainant was having savings bank account no.30095963944 with the opposite party-bank with ATM Card facility. Learned counsel reiterated the same facts as stated in the complaint that on 18.07.2018 he received a phone call that full amount has been withdrawn from his account and only Rs.1,000/- remained in his account. The unknown caller asked the ATM Card Number but he refused to give the same. On 18.07.2018 two transactions of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- were made from his ATM Card whereas the ATM Card was with him. On 23.07.2018 he made written complaint to the bank and on 24.07.2018 he made complaint to SP Gwalior. He argued that despite making complaint to the bank, the bank as

-5-

per guidelines of RBI did not credit the said amount to his account. The District Commission without considering that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the bank has erroneously dismissed the complaint. He therefore prayed that the impugned order be set-aside.

9.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-bank argued that at the time of giving ATM Card, PIN number is used to given to the customer in sealed envelope and without PIN no other person can use

ATM and withdraw the amount. This information is not known to any of the bank officer. On complaint being received from the complainant, enquiry was made from the switch centre and from the data received from the switch centre, it was found that all the transactions were made from the complainant’s ATM Card and the transactions were successful. There has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the bank. He therefore supporting the impugned order argued that this appeal be dismissed.

10.              The complainant has filed his affidavit along with document C-1 to C-8. On behalf of opposite party-bank an affidavit of Prabal Pratap Singh along with document R-1 to R-3 has been filed.

11.              Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record as also the impugned order we find from the record

-6-

that the complainant has stated that he went to Ahmedabad on 11.07.2018 for his treatment. On 18.07.2018 he received a blind call informing that his full amount has been withdrawn from his account and only Rs.1,000/- is balance and the unknown caller asked his ATM Card Number but he refused to give the same and on the same day an amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- was withdrawn from his account of which he made written complaint to the bank on 23.07.2018. On the other hand the defence of the opposite party-bank is that on 18.07.2018 four transactions were made with the help of complainant’s ATM Card and all transactions were successful. In all the transactions complainant’s ATM Card number was displayed. Out of the four transactions the complainant disputed the two transactions. In such circumstances the possibility that the complainant must have share the ATM Card number and other personal information to unknown caller cannot be ruled out. As without ATM Card number and PIN, how can the transactions were made. We fail to understand how it is possible that without ATM Card and without using PIN how another person can withdraw the amount from his account via ATM.

12.              It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant himself has filed C-5 which is SMS alert in which it is specifically stated that “Thank you for using your SBI Debit Card XX 1837 Purchase worth Rs.25,000/- POS at Air Tel Money, if not done by you, forward this SMS to

-7-

Mobile No.” In such a case when the complainant did not use the ATM card for transaction of Rs.25,000/- and thereafter of Rs.5,000/- he should have immediately forward the SMS to switch centre of the bank. He ought to have informed the bank as also on toll free number but he kept mum for a period of five days and lodged written complaint on 23.07.2018 with the home branch of the bank. What prevented him not to make immediate complaint. All this creates doubt.

13.              It is the responsibility of the customer to keep the secret code PIN and ATM Card No. confidential. The bank always warned to their customers not to provide information of secret code and bank details to any other person. If any transaction is made via ATM card by using secret code, it is the responsibility of the complainant and the bank cannot held liable for the same.  If some another person by committing cheating and fraud i.e. by criminal action made transaction from the account of the complainant that is too with the help of ATM card, how can the bank can be held liable for deficiency in service.

14.              It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no outcome or result of the complaint made by the complainant to the police is on record whereby the bank was held liable. In such circumstances, when the dispute is pending in criminal complaint with regard to incident, how the District Commission can entertain such complaint.

-8-

15.              For the foregoing discussion, we find that the District Commission after considering the evidence available on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, it is affirmed.

16.              In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                                Member