Haryana

Ambala

CC/385/2021

Hukam Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	385 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2021
Date of decision	:	15.02.2023

 

Hukam Chand son of Sh. Garib Dass, resident of House 339, Shiv Colony, Nahan Road, Ward No 6, Naraingarh, District Ambala-Haryana.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

State Bank of India, Naraingarh Branch (Main Branch), (Haryana) - 134203, through The Chief Manager/Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

….…. Opposite Party

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                             Shri Vivek Sagar, Advocate, counsel for the OP.                     

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To refund Rs 40,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant;
2. To pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant, who is a senior citizen.
3. To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having a Saving Bank Account bearing No:11117097964, with the OP Bank and issued an ATM qua the said Bank Account. The complainant has no knowledge regarding the Touch System Mobile Phone and using old Mobile Phone.  He only knows about receiving the calls and dialing the calls and except this, the complainant has no other knowledge of Mobile Phone. In the month of March 2021 (14-03-2021), the complainant went to the OP for entry in his Pass-book, whereupon, he came to know that there is less balance in his account. On checking the entries in his Passbook the complainant was surprised and shocked to note that the following amounts have been unauthorizedly withdrawn from the said account through ATM :-

 

1. Rs. 20,000/- on 07-08-2020  
2. Rs. 10,000/-on 08-08-2020
3. Rs. 10,000/- on 08-08-2020
4. Rs. 10,000/-  on 10-08-2020
5. Rs.10,000/- on 10-08-2020
6. Rs.10,023.60 paise on 11-08-2020
7. Rs.10,023.60 paise on 11-08-2020

             Total Rs. 80,047.20 Paise

 

                   Thereafter, the complainant immediately informed the OP to this effect vide application dated 27-08-2020 as the complainant was not in the knowledge regarding the withdrawal of the above said amount through ATM, however, no suitable action was taken by it.  The complainant reported the matter to the RBI and Prime Minister Office and after lot of pressure from the concerned authorities, OP  credited Rs. 80,000/- into the account of the complainant.  The complainant went to the bank for withdrawal Rs.80,000/- in the  month of December 2020 but was surprised to note that the OP paid Rs.40,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.40,000/- was not paid to him.  On enquiry from the OP, the complainant was told that the Government has permitted only for credit  of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to other competent authorities, but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.

3.           Upon notice, the OP appeared through its counsel and filed its written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has not approached with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts; the complaint is not maintainable etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the complainant filed an application dated 27.08.2020. The complainant himself had blocked his ATM on 14.08.2020 and requested for issuance of new ATM which was got issued to him on 18.08.2020. In the complaint dated 27.08.2020 he has stated about the disputed transaction amounting to Rs.80,000/- which took place from 07.08.2020 to 11.08.2020. After investigation, CMS Complaint was got lodged on 01.09.2020. The complainant has confirmed receipt of SMS on his registered mobile. As per report from SMS Bulk site also, SMS alert was delivered to the complainant on real time basis. Complainant informed the bank of the disputed transaction after 7 working days so the liability rests with the customer and there is no liability of the OP Bank as per RBI Guidelines issued vide Circular No. RBI/2017- 18/15 dated 06.07.2017. Had the customer blocked the ATM in time, the disputed transactions dated 10.08.2020 and 11.08.2020 could be avoided. Although the SMS alert of the disputed Transaction dated 07.08.2020 and 08.08.2020 done on SBI ATM was delivered to the customer, yet the customer failed to block the ATM Card in time and also failed to report these transactions. An amount of Rs. 40,000/- has already been credited to the complainant's account through IBIT. This claim has been given to the complainant after proper enquiry and from approval of the RBO. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-8 and closed the evidence on his behalf.
5.           Learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Rakesh Kumar, Deputy Manager of OP Bank-State Bank of India, as Annexure OP-A alongwith Annexures OP-1 to OP-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.
6.           We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for OP and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           The Complainant submitted that by not paying the remaining amount of Rs.40,000/- despite the fact that the OP Bank has failed to provide foolproof security to his account, as result of which amount was illegally withdrawn by someone from his account, the OP is deficient in providing service and indulged into unfair trade practice.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP submitted that since the complainant himself was at fault in not reporting the matter timely with regard to the said unauthorized withdrawal of amounts from his account and also at the same time, he also failed to block his account, the moment the message of unauthorized withdrawal was received on his mobile phone, as such,  he is not entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.40,0000/- out of Rs.80,000/-, as per the report submitted by the Board. 
9.           The moot question which falls for consideration in this case is as to whether, the complainant is entitled  to the remaining amount of Rs.40,000/- or not? It may be stated here that admittedly the transaction qua Rs.80,047.20ps. took place on 7^th, 8^th, 9^th and 11^th August 2020 from the account of the complainant. From the perusal of Annexure OP6, it is evident that SMS alerts were delivered to the complainant on real time of the said transactions.  It is also an admitted fact that it was for the first time on 27.08.2020 that the complainant had informed about the said unauthorized transactions from his account to the OP.  Thus, from the candid admission of the complainant himself, it has been proved that the information qua the said unauthorized withdrawals had been given by him to the OP after 13 days. It is significant to mention here that as per RBI Circular No.RBI/2017-18/15 dated 06.07.2017, Annexure OP-9 if there is a delay beyond seven working days qua the unauthorized withdrawals, the customer liability shall be determined as per the bank’s board approved policy. Since in the present case, admittedly there was a delay of more than 7 days i.e. delay of 13 days as referred to above, as such, the report dated 16.12.2020, Annexure OP-8 of the Members of SOP Committee, Chandigarh (LHO) wherein it has been opined that the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- only out of Rs.80,000/- is binding upon the complainant, as  the same is based on the provisions of  RBI Circular No.RBI/2017-18/15 dated 06.07.2017, Annexure OP-9, referred to above. Furthermore, the complainant has failed to place on record any contrary evidence to rebut the report dated 16.12.2020, Annexure OP-8, wherein it has been clearly opined by the Members of the said Committee that there has been negligence on the part of the complainant to the effect that despite receiving SMS report of the disputed transaction on real time basis on 07.08.2020, he failed to block his ATM card, which resulted into further unauthorized transactions on subsequent dates i.e. 08.10.2020, 10.08.2020 and 11.08.2020. Therefore, in our considered view as per the enquiry report dated 16.12.2020, Annexure OP-8 based on RBI Guidelines, the OP had credited the amount of Rs.40,000/- in the account of the complainant, as such, it cannot be said to be deficient in providing the services.    
10.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of any merits, consequently, we dismiss the present complaint without any order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

 Announced:- 15.02.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President