IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 31st day of October, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 184/2018 (Filed on 06-09-2018)
Petitioner : Sobhana V.P.
W/o. Sugathan,
Mupparayil,
Aymanam P.O.
(Adv. Geetha Sankar and
Adv. Vijayan P.S)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. State Bank of India,
Aymanam, P.B. No.1
AP-422/A, Aymanam P.O,.
Pin - 686015,
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
(Adv. P.G. Girija)
2. Federal Bank,
1st Floor, Federal Height,
Bye Pass Junction,
Aluva, Kerala – 683101
Rep. by the Money it Direction.
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant is an SB account holder of the first opposite party Branch of State bank of India with
account No.67006949738. The complainant attempted to withdraw Rs.10,000/- using SBI ATM card from the Federal Bank ATM Booth at Kudayampadi on 5.10. 2017. The first attempt for the withdrawal of cash was failed, and thereafter she tried 2 more attempts. But complainant did not receive any amount from the ATM.
On 9.10.17, on verification with the first opposite party it was revealed that Rs.30, 000/- is seen withdrawn from the account on 5.10.17 from the Federal bank ATM at Kudayampadi. On 11.10.17 the complainant made an Email complaint before the 1st opposite party that the amount has not been received on 5.10.2017. The first opposite party made her believe that the amount 30,000/- will be credited to her account. On 16.01.18 complainant enquired directly about the loss of her money with the 1st opposite party. Then they expressed their inability to pay back the money. Then complainant approached the Zonal office of the first opposite party and then as per their advice approached the Kottayam branch of the 2nd opposite party and had given a written complaint. But they did not offer any solution.
The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and it caused irreparable loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties.
The opposite parties appeared and filed their version. The version of the first opposite party is that on receipt of the complaint of the complainant dated 11.10.17 about non receipt of cash the first opposite party immediately lodged
CMS complaints on 12.10.17 against each of the disputed transactions. The second opposite party rejected each of these complaints on the ground that
the transactions were successful and cash was dispensed to the complainant.
The first opposite party again lodged complaints on16.11.17,21.1.18, and 9.2.18 through CMS. All these complaints were rejected by the second opposite party stating that all these transactions were successful. The first opposite party had collected documents like ATM switch Centre report, EJ Log, cash verification/cash summary/cash balance report, interbank reconciliation report and soft copy of CCTV images.
The EJ Log of the transactions shows that the complainant had received Rs.10,000/- each three times with a total of Rs30,000/- on 5.10.17 from the ATM counter of the second opposite party The first opposite party had acted immediately on the complaint of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
The version of the second opposite party is that the ATM card of the first opposite party bearing No.5103720165191907 was used at the ATM counter at Kudayampadi on 5.10.17 to withdraw an amount of 10,000/- each at 08.37.10, 08.38.32 and 08.39.32 hours.
The CCTV footage shows that a middle-aged lady accompanied by a male was present in the ATM cabin at the time of withdrawal of the amount. From the records Electronic Journal Entry (EJ Log), ATM switch Centre report, interbank
Reconciliation statement, Cash tally Report etc. it can be seen that Rs.30,000/- was withdrawn from the said ATM by using the above ATM Card.
As soon as the second opposite party received information from the first opposite party all necessary enquires were made and it was clarified that the transactions were made using the ATM card with sequence numbers 6019,6020,6021 were successful and the amount was received by the person who used the card. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A9. First opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents B1 and B2. Second opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibit B3 to B6.The complainant was deposed as PW1.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite parties, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
1 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
2 If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
Points 1 and 2
Ongoing through the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced it is clear that the complainant is having a Savings Bank account with the first opposite party with account No.67006949738. On 05.10.2017 the complainant visited the ATM Counter of the second opposite party at Kudayampadi for the withdrawal of cash. The complainant used the ATM debit card with card number 5103720165191907 issued by the first opposite party. The complainant made 3 transactions with serial numbers 6019, 6020, and 6021 at 08.37.10 AM, 8.38.14 AM and 8.39.32 AM for the withdrawal of Rs.10, 000/ on each time. But the complainant had not received money.
ExtB1/A9 is the letter dated 17.08.2018 from the Manager, first opposite party to the complainant stating that since the ATM Bank had repeatedly rejected the complaints, claiming that the transactions were successful and produced documents in support of their claim, the bank is not in a position to recredit the disputed amount to the SB account.
Ext B3 is the Electronic Journal (EJ Log) from 08.29 to 08.57 on 05.10.2017 showing the transactions with serial nos.6019,6020 and 6021 with card 5103720165191907 with withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- each time and available balance of Rs.52783/- after the third transaction.
Ext B4 is the ATM Switch Centre Report containing the disputed three transactions. Ext B5 is the interbank reconciliation statement on 05.10.2017 which shows that the three disputed transactions were reconciled Ext B6 is the Cash Tally certificate, which shows that before the suspected transactions, cash was loaded in the ATM machine No.CD102519 on 04/10/2017.The switch balance and physical balance on 4.10.17 was Rs.3,49,100/-, and the difference was zero. Cash was loaded after the suspected transactions in the ATM on 16.10.17 and the switch balance and physical balance in the ATM was 18,50,600/-.and the difference was zero.
The Exts B3, B4, B5 and B6 documents shows that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn thrice from the ATM counter at Kudayampadi on 05.10.2017 by using the ATM debit card with No.5103720165191907.But the complainant had not received the money. This is clearly a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer, but lies elsewhere in the system.
Even though the opposite parties stated that they have the CCTV footages
from the ATM counter, the same is not produced before the Commission.
Ext A9/B1 shows that the first opposite party has responded to the complainant only on 17.08.2018 to the complaint filed on 11.10.17.
Reserve Bank of India issued Notification regarding Customer Protection -Limiting Liability of customers in unauthorized electronic Banking Transactions, vide number RBI/2017-18/15, DBR.No. Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated July 6,2017 to all Scheduled Commercial Banks and All Small Finance Banks.
Based on this notification the State Bank of India issued STATE BANK OF INDIA COMPENSATION POLICY (BANKING SERVICES)-2018.
As per this policy the liability of a customer is given as mentioned below.
4.6.2: Limited Liability of a Customer:
a. Zero Liability of a Customer: A customer’s entitlement to zero liability shall
arise where the unauthorised transaction occurs in the following events:
(i) Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the Bank
(irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).
(ii) Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with
the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the
Bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the Bank
(by SMS alert, email or letter) regarding the unauthorised transaction.
4.6.4.: Reversal Timeline for Zero Liability/ Limited Liability of customer on being notified by the customer, the bank will credit (shadow reversal) the amount
involved in the unauthorised electronic transaction to the customer’s account
within 10 working days from the date of such notification by the customer. The
credit shall be value dated to be as of the date of the unauthorised transaction.
4.6.5 Further, banks will ensure that: a) a complaint is resolved and liability of
the customer, if any, established within 90 days from the date of receipt of the
complaint, and the customer is compensated as per provisions of paragraphs
4.6.2 to 4.6.4 above;
b) where it is unable to resolve the complaint, or determine the customer
liability, if any, within 90 days, the compensation as prescribed in paragraphs
4.6.2 to 4.6.4 is paid to the customer; and
c) in case of debit card/ bank account, the customer does not suffer loss of
interest.
On the basis of the above discussed findings, it is clear that the complainant
made the disputed transactions on 5.10.17. The complainant on cross examination by the opposite parties deposed that she came to know about the unauthorized transactions on 09.10.17.
The complainant had given the first complaint to the first opposite party on 11.10.17. This shows that the complainant had notified the first opposite party about the Unauthorized ATM transactions within 3 days of getting information.
Thus, as per para 4.6.2 (ii) of the SBI Policy 2018 the complainant is having only
zero liability. The opposite party is liable to credit the transaction amounts to the
complainants account within 10 days as prescribed in para.4.6.4.
Moreover, as per para 4.6.5 (b) of the notification the Bank shall ensure that
where it is unable to resolve the complaint or determine the customer liability, if
any, within 90 days, the compensation as prescribed in 4.6.2 to 4.6.4 is paid to
the customer;
From Ext A9/B1 it is clear that the first opposite party had responded to the complaint of the complainant dated 11.10.2017 only on 17.08.2018. This clearly shows that the first opposite party failed to sort out the grievance of the complainant within the stipulated time and as a result the complainant had faced much sufferings and hardships. The First opposite party is liable to compensate for this failure.
Based on the above discussed findings it is clear that the first opposite party
failed to sort out the grievance of the complainant within the time limit of 90 days as per the standing circulars of the State Bank of India. This act on the part of the fist opposite party is deficiency in service on their part.
Hence points No 1 and 2 are found in favor of the complainant. We allow the complaint and pass the following orders
1. The first opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.
2. The first opposite party is directed to give Rs,10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings with cost Rs.2000/-.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of October, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 - Sobha V.P.
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Letter dtd.12-02-18 from complainant to Banking Ombudsman
A2 – Letter dtd.03-03-18 from complainant to Banking Ombudsman
A3 - Letter dtd.26-06-18 from complainant to Banking Ombudsman
A4- Postal receipt
A5- Notice from CDRC, Kottayam dtd.27-10-21
A6- Reply letter dtd.29-05-2018 from Banking Ombudsman to complainant
A7 - Reply letter dtd.11-07-2018 from Banking Ombudsman to complainant
A8 – Letter dtd.27-02-2018 from Banking Ombudsman to complainant
A9- Letter dtd.17-08-18 from SBI to complainant
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of letter dtd.17-08-18 from SBI to complainant
B2 – Copy of statement before Banking Ombudsman by SBI
B3 – Copy of EJ
B4– ATM switch report
B5- Interbank reconciliation statement
B6 –Cash tally certificate
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
