CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 24/2013
Tuesday, the 30th day of September, 2014
Petitioner : Jayeshkumar T.G.
S/o. T.K. Govindapilla,
Thottupurath Kizhakkethil (H),
Amayannoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686 025.
Vs.
Opposite Party : Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Branch Code - 12882
Kunnappalliyil Building,
Ayarkunnam P.O.
Kottayam – 686 564.
(Adv. Sunny George Chathukulam)
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 30/01/2013 is as follows;
The complainant was employed out of India for years. At present he is working at Abudabi. He had an NRI account with the opposite party’s bank. The complainant was noticed that there was shortage of Rs.1,65,994/- from his account. The amount was withdrawed from the account of the complainant that from 4 shops in West America for 7 purchases. The complainant had made a written complaint to the opposite party on 27/11/2012. The opposite party assured that after 46 days the amount was remitted to the account of the complainant. Hence the complainant has not made any complaint to the police or other authorities. But after the continuous reminders, the opposite party made a reply to the complainant after 55 days of transaction stating that, it was a clear transaction and so he may filed complaint. The complainant never visited the West America and the ATM car was safely kept with the purse. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
The notice was served with the opposite party. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. On enquiry by the opposite party found that the entire transaction were clear transaction from ATM switch centre in Mumbai and hence the opposite party has given a reply that the transaction alleged by the complainant are genuine transaction and hence the bank was not in a position to charge back and advised the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings. As per the clause C on the terms and conditions for issuing ATM cards, it is very specifically state that “ the card is issued on the condition that bank bears no liability for the unauthorized use of the cards. This responsibility is fully that of the card holder” and as per the clause D “ any financial loss arising out of unauthorised use of the card till such time the Bank records, the notice of loss of card will be to the card holder’s account”. The opposite party is not at all liable and responsible for the loss if any sustained by the complainant due to the misuse of the ATM card. The loss of money from the account of the card holder is not due to any mistake of the ATM or intent failure, but due to the genuine use of the ATM card under the circumstances. The opposite party is not liable and responsible to the loss sustained by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A5. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and one document which is marked as Ext.B1.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that somebody had withdrawn Rs.1,65,994/- from the account of the complainant through ATM at West America by way of 4 shops and 7 purchases. According to him, he was working at Abudabi and he never visited West America, which was clearly seen from the passport. The complainant clearly stated that the ATM card was safely with his pocket at Abudabi at the time of the alleged 7 transactions. The opposite party made a contention that the alleged transactions were genuine transaction and there was any fault which was clear from the ATM details from Mumbai. According to the opposite party, there was no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party. From the available documents and evidences it can be seen that the transaction was genuine one. There was no evidence to show that there was any default or deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party. Admittedly, the transaction was done at West America. At this stage, we cannot say that the opposite party had done any mistake or default. Moreover, there was no evidence adduced by the complainant with regards to the allegations against the opposite party before the police or other authorities except this complaint. Hence we are of the opinion that in the lack of evidence, the case of the complainant is to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1 : Photocopy of passport No.H5189694
Ext.A2 : Photocopy of statement of account (A/c No. 30252827803)
from SBT Ayarkunnam)
Ext.A3 : Photocopy of reply from SBI dtd.28/11/2012
Ext.A4 : Photocopy of transaction details from Macy’s Everett dtd.27/06/12
Ext.A5 : Photocopy of e-mail letter dtd.13/01/13
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1 : Terms and conditions of application form for ATM card of SBT
By Order
Senior Superintendent
