Haryana

Karnal

308/2012

Jangi Ram S/o Sadhu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.C. Koshikish

03 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                 Complaint No. 308 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt. 19.06.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 3.2.2017

 

Jangi Ram son of Shri Sadhu Ram, resident of quarter no.19/3, Canal Colony, Meerut Road, District Karnal.               

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

                                                         Versus

 

1. The Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, The Mall, Karnal.

2. The Manager, ICICI Bank Sector-12, Urban Estate Karnal.

                                          

                                                                            ………..Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present       Shri S.C.Kaushik Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Pankaj Malhatra Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Shri D.P.Kharb Advocate for opposite party no.2.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he was having savings account no.10868435577 with the opposite party no.1 and ATM card bearing no.6220180066500096822 was issued in his name. He had withdrawn an amount of Rs.12000/- on 3.1.2012. After withdrawal of the said amount, Rs.91,912/- was balance in his account. He again visited the Bank and checked his amount on 14.1.2012 and found that there was balance of Rs.4.42/- only in his account. His ATM card was misused by some person and the amount of Rs.91908/- was withdrawn during the period of 9.1.2012 to 11.1.2012 by using his ATM card. On 9.1.2012 his ATM card was used four times in the Axis Bank ATM Panipat for withdrawing Rs.10,000/- each time. On 10.1.2012 his ATM card was used in the ATM of ICICI Bank four times and total amount of Rs.40060/- was withdrawn. On 11.1.2012 his ATM card was used twice in the ATM of ICICI Bank and amount of Rs.11,848/- was withdrawn. When he checked his amount through ATM card, the ATM machine had shown “Pin code Blocked and Pin Code not correct”. He neither got changed his Pin code nor the ATM card. He brought the matter to the knowledge of the opposite party no.1 as well as to the police through written complaints on 17.1.2012 and 18.1.2012. However, the opposite parties instead of taking action, blamed him and refused to take any step. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that there is common control centre of all the Banks at Belapur, where the transaction by ATM when successful, is reflected in the JP Roll and accordingly the Branch of the customer is informed and his account is accordingly debited. The transactions complained of by the complainant were investigated by the Branch of the ATM used and it was found that the transactions in question were successful. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.

3.                Opposite party no.2 also filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this forum; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties; that the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party no.2 and that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party no.2.

                   On merits, it has been pleaded that the opposite party no.2 received a charge back from the banker of the complainant i.e. opposite party no.1 for transactions reference numbers 2127, 2128, 2132, 2133, 2378 and 2379 on 17.1.2012. On verification, it was found that the said transactions were successful. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-1 to Annexure-4 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Ex.O2/1 and document Ex.O1  have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant was having savings account with opposite party no.1, who had issued him ATM card also. On 3.1.2012 he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- and after that withdrawal an amount of Rs.91912/- was balance in his account. However, on 14.1.2012 when he checked his account he found that an amount of Rs.91908/- was withdrawn from his account during the period of 9.1.2012 to 11.1.2012 from various ATM machines.

8.                It has been alleged that his ATM card was misused by some person. On the other hand the opposite parties have submitted that the transactions disputed by the complainant were successful as per the J.P.Roll. The opposite parties have produced the copy of the J.P. Roll according to which the transactions made from the ATM of the complainant, during the period of 9.1.2012 to 11.1.2012 were successful. The complainant made written complaints on 17.1.2012 and 18.1.2012 to the police as well as Manager of State Bank of India Karnal. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 got verified the complaints from the concerned banks, whose ATMs were used for the disputed withdrawals, but from the record of J.P. Roll all the transactions were found to be successful. ATM card was in the possession of the complainant and he could only have knowledge about the security PIN number. Without security PIN number, there could be no possibility of using the ATM card of the complainant by any other person. The complainant must have been vigilant and he should not have disclosed his security PIN number to any person. By disclosing the security PIN number to some other person, the complainant himself afforded opportunity to such person to misuse his ATM card. He compromised with the security/safety of his bank account by disclosing the security PIN of the ATM card.  Therefore, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. The bank cannot be held responsible for withdrawal of any amount from the account of the complainant by using his security card and security PIN number by any other person. Thus, the complainant has failed to establish that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 03.02.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member