Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/150

Nasrin Praveen - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Malviya

28 May 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

Case No. 150/2017

  Date of Filing-07-11-2017

 Date of Order-28-05-2022

Nasrin Praveen W/o- Arshad Ali

 R/o- Kathar No.1 Near Hospital, Bokaro Tharmal,

 P.S- B.T.P.S.  District- Bokaro

                                      Vr.

State Bank of India, A.D.M. Market Jainamore Branch,

District- Bokaro Jharkhand Present:-

          Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

             Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

                                                -Order-

1.    Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.P. to pay Rs. 1,78,500/- as compensation to the complainant on account of fraudulent withdrawal and for payment of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively as compensation for harassment and litigation cost.

 

2.    Complainant’s case in brief is that she is maintaining savings bank A/c No. 32739839904 in the bank of O.P. Further case is that on 10.10.2017 complainant went in the ATM of SBI Sector-4 where one person has cheated her and taken her ATM Card and in place of her ATM Card he gave another ATM Card about which she came to know on 3^rd day that it is in the name of Suman Oraon.  Further case is that she went to the Bank where she found that total Rs. 1,78,500/- has been fraudulently withdrawn by someone and as per banking rule only Rs. 40,000/- can be withdrawn in one day but said transaction of Rs. 1,78,500/- has been made in one day, hence there is deficiency in service by the Bank who has not settled her grievance therefore, case has been filed.

 

3.     W.S. has been filed by the O.P. mentioning therein that it is a case of cyber crime in which bank cannot be held liable in any way. Further reply is that all transactions have been made through the ATM Card of the complainant hence it is not possible by any other person except the card holder because PIN is the secret number which is known to the card holder only. Further reply is that ATM withdrawal has been made in two days on 10.10.2017 and 11.10.2017 and other transactions are not the ATM withdrawal rather through other transactions transfer of the amount has been made through card to card, details of ATM log has been filed in support of the contentions.

 

4.     Only point for consideration is whether alleged transaction comes within deficiency in service by the bank or it is related to cyber crime ?

 

5.    In support of the case complainant has filed copy of the passbook to show that all the transactions have been done on 11.10.2017. On the other hand ATM log has been filed by the O.P. to show that the ATM Card of the complainant has been used thrice on 10.10.2017 and 11.11.2017 for making 6 transactions. It further shows that on 10.10.2017 only Rs. 37500/- has been withdrawn through the ATM and Rs. 40,000/- has been transferred by card to card in two transactions of Rs. 20,000/- each. Similarly on 11.10.2017 only Rs. 40,000/- has been withdrawn through the ATM and Rs. 40,000/- has been transferred by card to card in two transactions of Rs. 20,000/- each. In this way it is apparent that the ATM card of the complainant has been used for completion of the transactions about which she was only the competent person to know the secret/ confidential PIN Number which is a secret number not known to others. Complainant has not taken any step regarding blocking her ATM Card.  In this way all the transactions have been made within permissible limit of the banking rules for which bank cannot be held liable in respect to deficiency in service. Accordingly this point is being decided against the complainant.
6.     In the given facts we are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed accordingly this case is being dismissed.