Punjab

Sangrur

CC/606/2017

Prem Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Kaler

13 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    606

                                                Instituted on:      17.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       13.04.2018

 

 

Prem Chand S/o Mohan Lal R/O #238, Ward No.13, Boghi Patti, Dirba, Sub Tehsil Dirba, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             State Bank of India, Branch Dirba, Sub Tehsil Dirba, Tehsil and District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             State Bank of India, Registered/Head Office: State Bank Bhawan, 14^th Floor, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 through its M.D.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Gagndeep Bhagria, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Prem Chand, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by opening a saving bank account number 55147185768 and has been operating since long. The case of the complainant is that there was a balance of Rs.1,40,636/- in his account on 8.9.2017 and as such, the OPs also issued ATM card.  The grievance of the complainant is that the account of the complainant was debited with an amount of Rs.86,999/- on 9.9.2017 and 11.9.2017, whereas the complainant did not make any online purchase or withdrew any money from his account.   Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the OP number 1 bank for making the inquiry regarding the above said illegal withdrawal of the amount from the account of the complainant, but all in vain. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the Ops on 26.9.2017. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.86,999/- and further complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint,  that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is wrong, false, bad and vague and vexatious.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having a saving bank account in question with the OPs.  It is further stated that it is not mentioned in the complaint that on 9.9.2017, what amount was withdrawn by the complainant. It is also denied that the complainant ever approached the OPs on 10.9.2017 for making any enquiry regarding the messages received by him and for checking the account and for lodging any complaint regarding the irregularity of the account.   It is further stated that the complainant has since been given the ATM along with passport, which is only known to the complainant, as such the OP has no concern with the withdrawal of the amount from his account.  It is stated further that even after 11.9.2017, the complainant withdrew Rs.2000/- as cash through ATM on 12.9.2017 from the ATM of PNB, Dirba and on 15.9.2017 he had withdrew Rs.4000/- as cash  through ATM.  It is further stated that even till date the complainant had not got blocked his ATM debit card and amount of Rs.41,187/- still exists in the account of the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got opened a saving bank account number 55147185768 with the OP number 1 and the OP number 1 also issued him an ATM (debit card) which the complainant has been using since long. 

 

6.             In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on the ground that there was unauthorised withdrawal of the amount of Rs.86,999/- from his account between the dates from 9.9.2017 to 11.9.2017 which the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the same has occurred due to in connivance or omission on the part of the OPs.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that though he approached the OP number 1 to enquire about the so withdrawal of the amount, but nothing happened and the OPs did not take any necessary action.  As such, has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that since the OPs issued to the complainant an ATM card for withdrawal of the amounts from his account and further a secret password was issued for the operation of the ATM card, which is solely with the complainant and not with any other one.  It is further contended that as per the statement of account, 12 transactions took place from the account of the complainant and all the transactions were made for point of sale purpose, but the complainant never lodged any complaint nor he got blocked the ATM card or his account.  A bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that the complainant never approached the OPs for blocking his ATM card or his account, nor he has produced any copy of such request/application submitted to the Ops for blockage/stopping of transaction from his account.  The complainant has got served only legal notice upon the OP number 1 on 26.9.2017, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3, but again it nowhere shows that the complainant ever requested the OP number 1 for blockage of his ATM Debit card. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited State Bank of India versus Dr. J.C.S.Kataky 2017(2) CPR 632, wherein the case was of misuse of ATM card and the District Forum held deficiency in service on the part of the bank. It was also held that once complaint was made citing specific incidents of unauthorised withdrawals, it was the duty of the bank to have carried out the necessary verification in the matter. Evidently, there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Bank.  But, in the present case, it is admitted case of the complainant himself that his account is still in working condition and he never requested to the Ops for blockage of his account in question.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that this citation is not at all helpful to the case of the complainant. Since the complainant has himself failed to prove his case of any unauthorised use of ATM card, we are of the considered opinion that this complaint deserves dismissal.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 13, 2018.                                                  

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                             Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member