DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 278 of 29.7.2019

                                      Decided on:         23.1.2023

Smt.Vijay Bhandari @ Vijay Laxmi aged about 36 years wife of Sh.Rupinder Singh, Resident of Gagan Vihar, Khalsa Nagar, St. No.3, Bhadson Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Bhupindra Nagar, Patiala.

2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Bhupindra Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

PRESENT:                             Sh.Depender Singh, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Paramjit Singh Mann, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Smt.Vijay Bhandari @ Vijay Laxmi       (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That the complainant is the consumer of the OPs havingsaving account No.65119435957 and is operating her account using the ATM services provided by the OPs.On 18.3.2019 Rs.20,000/- & Rs.14,000/-, on 19.3.2019 Rs.20,000/-, on 24.3.2019 Rs.20,000/- and on 25.3.2019 Rs.20,000/- totaling Rs.94,000/- were fraudulently deducted from the aforementioned saving bank account of the complainant through ATM machine from various places withoutreceipt of any message in this regard .Complainant came to know about all theses deductions on 2.4.2019 when she visited OPs to withdraw some amount for the purpose of admission of her children in the school.The complainant filed complaint to the SSP Patiala vide diary No.2257 dated 2.4.2019 upon which P.S.Tripuri lodged FIR No.83 dated 28.4.2019 under Section 420 IPC against unknown persons and also recorded the statement of complainant. In reply to the complaint filed by the complainant with the OPs, they stated that the bank has delivered the transaction alert SMS for the transaction which took place from 17.3.2019 to 25.3.2019, mentioning only regarding the undisputed Rs.6000/- from SBI ATM on 23.3.2019 , withdrawn by the complainant while the actual fraudulent deduction were taken place from 18.3.2019 to 25.3.2019.The OPs allegation that the matter was reported on 2.4.2019 i.e. after laps of 7 working days. The complainant also sent reminder on 11.7.2019 with regard to the fraudulent transactions made in her saving bank account but of no action was taken by the OPs and failed to refund back the amount fraudulently withdrawn from her saving bank account.There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony, tension, harassment and humiliation to the complainant. Consequently prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement having raised certain preliminary objections. On merits. It is admitted to the extent that the complainant is maintaining saving account with the OPs. It is stated that SMS sent by the bank were received by the complainant in respect of the transactions challenged by the complainant but she did not inform the bank in time.It is also admitted to the extent that the complainant lodted a complaint with SSP,Patiala  without leveling any allegation against the OPs and after preliminary investigation an FIR was registered on 28.4.2019 by police station, Tripuri,Patiala.It is alleged that bank is not liable because the transaction alert has been sent to the complainant through SMS but the complainant failed to approach the bank for blocking the debit cum ATM card.It is further alleged that the complainant made transaction of Rs.6000/- through her debit cum ATM card on 23.3.2019 at that time the complainant did not bother to take cognizance of the disputed entries. There is thus no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In support of the case, ld. counsel for the complainant has furnished Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C1 copy of pass book,Ex.C2 copy of statement of account, Ex.C3 copy of ATM card, Ex.C4 copy of complaint to SSP, Ex.C5 copy of FIR, Ex.C6 copy of application to Manager regarding fraud entry, Ex.C7 copy of reply to the application by SBI,Ex.C8 copy of e-mail to Asstt.General Manager, SBI and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand,ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Jatinder Kaur,Chief Manager,SBI, Ex.OP1 copy of circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 6.7.2017,Ex.OP2 copy of compensation policy of State Bank of India, 2018, Ex.OP3 copy of details of SMS sent to complainant(two pages), Ex.OP4 copy of statement of account of complainant from 1.3.2019 to 31.3.2019 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. Admittedly the complainant is a consumer of the OPs having saving bank account No.65119435957,(copy of pass book Ex.C1)  and is also holding ATM card,(copy Ex.C3)  provided by the OPs against the said account number. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs due to fraudulent withdrawals  of Rs.20,000/- & Rs.14,000/- on 218.3.2019, Rs.20,000/-each  on 19.3.2019,  on 24.3.2019 and on 25.3.2019 totaling Rs.94,000/- from her saving bank account as is shown in statement of account, Ex.C2.The complainant has stated that the ATM card was in her possession during the above said period and  she has not used the same for making the above said transactions. The matter was brought to the notice of the police on 2.4.2019 vide complaint, Ex.C4.The OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter, Ex.C7 on the ground that SMS alert for each transaction was delivered to the complainant and also the matter was not reported by the complainant within 7 working days to the bank as per the compensation policy issued  by the bank. Ld. counsel for the OPs has relied upon the guidelines issued by the RBI, dealing with Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions, Ex.OP1 and which have been adopted by the said bank, copy of which is Ex.OP2.Ld. counsel for the OPs has further relied upon SMS data, Ex.OP3,  for the account of the complainant. Ld. counsel for the OPs has also placed reliance upon the citations State Bank of India Vs. K.K.Bhalla, Revision Petition No.3181 of 2008, decided on 7.4.2011, Raghabendra Nath Sen & Anr. Vs. Punjab National bank, decided on 17.12.2014 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, Aditya Sankar Sengupta & Others Vs. State Bank of India ,Appeal case No.24 of 2015 decided on 16.9.2015 by the Hon’ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and State Bank of Patiala Vs. Ritu Lakhanpal and another (2014)4 CPJ (CN)8(1) of the Hon’ble Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
8. On going through the SMS data provided by the OPs, it transpires that SMS dated 19.3.2019 when alleged fraudulent transaction of Rs.20,000/- has been made was never delivered to the complainant. Even the message for withdrawal of Rs.6000/-each on 17.3.2019 and 23.3.2019, which have not been disputed by the complainant were not delivered. Alleged transactions of Rs.20,000/- on 24.3.2019 and on 25.3.2019 were reported by the complainant on 2.4.2019 i.e. within 7 working days and as such there is a limited liability of the complainant on account of these transactions as per the guidelines of the OPs  enlisted at para 4.6.2 and 4.6.3, which limited the liability of the complainant to Rs.10,000/- in case of each transaction.
9. From the above discussion, it transpires that the ATM card was never stolen and was in possession of the complainant all the time and the pin number for using the said ATM was also known to the complainant and as such no transaction can be made without possession of ATM card and knowledge of Pin number to operate the same. Since the transactions were successful , as such the same cannot be done without the use of said ATM card and four digit secret pin which was in possession of the complainant.
10. Further the complainant did not take notice of the various messages sent on her registered mobile number wherein it has been clearly mentioned regarding the withdrawal of the amount and further indicating the balance after withdrawal and advising the complainant to block the card by calling a particular number or sending an SMS so that further transactions could not be made.The amount of withdrawal and balance was sent through these messages at the time of alleged fraudulent transactions except those as discussed above. Had the complainant been alert the above alleged transactions could have been avoided.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the bank was not deficient in providing the services in the cases where the messages were delivered. However, bank is liable for the transactions dated 19.3.2019 of Rs.20,000/- when no such message was delivered to the complainant and is also responsible for the transactions dated 24.3.2019 and 25.3.2019 when transaction of Rs.20,000/each were made  to the extent of Rs.10,000/-each due to the limited liability of the complainant as per the guidelines, when reference was made by the complainant to the bank on 2.4.2019 i.e. within 7 working days. As such we direct the OPs to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.3000/-as costs of the complaint within 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order.       
12.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President