| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 472 of 22.12.2017 Decided on: 26.12.2022 1. Gagandeep Jindal, aged about 35 years son of Sh.Kamal. 2. Ms Poonam Jindal, aged about 34 years wife of Sh.Gagandeep Jindal Both residents of House No.238/8,Dogra Street, Sirhindi Gate,Patiala. …………...Complainants Versus 1. State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through the chief General Manager of the Bank. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Indian Oil Corporation Branch, Near Railway Station, Patiala. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member ARGUED BY Sh.J.S.Jindu, counsel for vcomplainants. Sh.Hemant Nanda,counsel for OPs. ORDER S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT - The instant complaint is filed by Gagandeep Jindal S/o Sh.Kamal and Ms.Poonam Jindal wife of Sh.Gagandeep Jindal (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) against State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
- It is averred that the complainants have been maintaining saving bank account No.55155379672 in State Bank of Patiala since 2014(now known as State Bank of India) against which ATM card has also been issued. It is further averred that on 3.3.2017 the complainants went to the bank of the OPs for getting the pass book completed, they came to know that sum of Rs.59500/- has been got released/transferred fraudulently by some unknown person on three different dates i.e. Rs.19,999/- on 2.2.2017, Rs.19,999/- on 5.2.2017 and Rs.19500/- on 6.2.2017 by using their ATM card. It is further averred that no intimation/message was ever given to the complainants with regard to the above said three withdrawals. It is further averred that the complainants immediately filed complaint before OP No.2 but of no use. It is further averred that complainants time and again requested OPs for releasing the amount but all in vain. The complainants also got issued legal notice upon the OPs but of no use. It is further averred that no intimation/message regarding withdrawal of the above stated amount has been received by the complainants on their registered mobile number. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Consequently, prayer has thus been made for acceptance of the complaint.
- Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and filed the written version taking various preliminary objections.
- On merits, it is admitted that the complainants have been maintaining bank account with the OPs and ATM card has also been issued by OP No.2 which the complainants have been using from time to time. It is averred that as and when ATM card is used, without the OTP/PIN code, the amount cannot be transferred/withdrawn. It is further averred that whenever the amount was transferred or POS Transactions from the ATM, message is also delivered on the registered mobile number automatically. It is further averred that a letter was issued by the bank on 17.6.2017 stating that entries were done successfully through ATM and the message was also delivered to the registered mobile No.99145-31824 of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainants are not entitled to get any money. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the averments made in the complaint, ld.counsel for the complainant has furnished affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA and the documents,Ex.C1 copy of application dated 4.3.2017, Ex.C2 copy of application to Incharge Cyber Crime,Ex.C3 copy of application dated 21.3.2017,Ex.C4 copy of application,Ex.C5 copy of letter dated 16.3.2017,Ex.C6 copy of letter dated 17.6.2017,Ex.C7 copy of legal notice,Exs.C8 & C9, postal receipts and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Abhinav, Assistant Manager of SBI alongwith documents,Ex.OOP1 copy of computerized detail of transactions and closed the evidence.
- After hearing ld.counsel of both the parties and having gone through the record of this case, carefully, the question arises before us is whether the bank is responsible for the alleged fraudulent transactions made on 2.2.2017, 5.2.2017 and 6.2.2017 of the total amount of Rs.59500/-.
- The averment of the complainants is that transaction of Rs.19,999/- was made on 2.2.2017, again transaction of Rs.19,999/-( three transactions of Rs.5000/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.9999/-each) was made on 5.2.2017 and the transaction of Rs.19500/- was made on 6.2.2017. The complainants have averred that they came to know about these fraudulent transactions on 3.3.2017.Further averment of the complainants is that during this period ATM/debit card was always in their possession and was never handed over to any third person for making aforesaid transactions. They have further averred that no intimation/message was ever given/received by them with regard to these fraudulent transactions. Various representations from 4.7.2017 to 21.3.2017 (Exs.C1 to C4) were made by the complainants with a request to the OPs to enquire about these transactions and the refund of the amount withdrawn from their account. The OPs in reply to said representations have stated that the matter was taken with the concerned department and the transactions in the account were made while using ATM card and OTP in respect of these transactions and transaction being successful was delivered on the registered mobile number 9914531824 of complainant and as such there is no negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- The complainants have further relied upon the RBI guidelines. Although the said guidelines have been issued on 6.7.2017, which are immediately after the transactions in dispute were made during the month of 2/2017, even then the said guidelines do not support the arguments of the complainant regarding deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, since as per the said guidelines as the time taken to report any fraudulent transaction from the date of receiving the communication is beyond seven working days, the bank is not at all responsible and the complainants are fully liable for any said transactions. Since in this case the intimation was given after about 30 days, as such complainant is fully liable for such transactions.
- We have further gone through the transaction details, Ex.OP1 provided by the OPs and observed that OTP in the case of transactions made on 2.2.2017 and 6.2.2017 were duly delivered on the registered mobile number 99145 31824 of the consumer and further a message in respect of transaction being successful was again delivered on the registered mobile number of the complainants. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs since the message for the transactions in the shape of generation of OTP and then transaction being successful was delivered on the registered mobile of the complainants.
- As far as the transactions of Rs.5000/-,Rs.5000/- and Rs.9999/- dated 6.2.2017 are concerned, the same pertained to the withdrawal from the ATM, it was duly argued by the Ld. counsel for the OPs and also verified by the Bank Manager who deposed regarding the same and further stated that for such transactions OTP is not required. However, the message regarding these transactions being successful have been duly delivered on the registered mobile number of the complainants.
- From the above discussion, it is clear that since OTP/messages for the transactions disputed by the complainants were duly delivered on the registered mobile number of the complainant, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs regarding above said transactions. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
PRONOUNCED DATED:26.12.2022 G.S.Nagi S.K.AGGARWAL Member President | |
