IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smti S.Bora
Member(F)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Sri P.Das
Member(Gen.)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.25/2016
1.Sri Mahendra Narah : Complainant
S/o Sri Naren Narah
Resident of Vill: Tokowbari
P.O: Buroighat, P.S: Gohpur
Dist: Sonitpur,Assam
Vs.
1.The State Bank of India : Opp
Balijan Branch
Gohpur,Dist: Sonitpur
Appearance:
Sri Abhijit Kar, Adv. : For the Complainant
Sri Paramananda Kakoty,Adv. : For the Opp. parties
Date of argument : 27/10/17 & 09/11/17
Date of Judgment : 22/11/2017
J U D G M E N T
- The facts disclosed under the complaint, in brief, are that, on 26-10-2016 the Complainant after receiving 2 SMS about withdrawal made from his Savings Bank account No.31432331689 with the opposite party Bank rushed to the opposite party Bank where he came to know of 5(five) ATM withdrawal @Rs.40,000/-, @Rs.10,023/-, 10,023/-, 10,023/- and 10,023/- made on 25-10-2016 and @Rs.20,000/- made twice on 26-1-2016 total being Rs.1,20,092/-(Rupees One lakh twenty thousand ninety two)only showing the place of withdrawal to be
Ballabgarh Railway Station, Faridabad. The complainant showed his ATM Card to the Manager-in-charge and requested him to block the ATM Card while lodging formal complaint with the opposite party. An FIR was also lodged before the Gohpur Police Station. Finding thereafter that the opposite party Bank did not even feel the need of writing a line of reply to intimate him over the steps taken by it to redress his grievance, the Complainant is therefore, before this Forum alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party thereby praying a total relief of Rs.1,80,092/- under different heads as mentioned under his complaint.
- Opposite party contested the case by filing written version. With the counter allegation that the secret PIN was compromised by the complainant himself and the ATM Card was made to slip into wrong hands for the time being with full knowledge of the complainant, as its contention in main, the opposite party denied any deficient service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- Complainant tendered his evidence in chief on affidavit exhibiting few documents thereunder. Opposite party failed to adduce evidence of any witness and preferred to remain content by cross-examining the complainant.
We have carefully gone through the materials available on record including the written argument filed by the complainant only.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
i)Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the State Bank of India ?
ii)Whether the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION ON THE PONTS WITH DISCUSSION
4.Point No.i):-On a simple scrutiny of the materials on record, we have found that the opposite party has not disputed the fact of maintaining Savings Bank account by the Complainant with its Balijan Branch, at Gohpur in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. Against the said Account, Complainant had availed ATM cum-Debit Card facility and by using the ATM somebody withdrew money from Faridabad.
5. The opposite party Bank has resisted the claim of fraudulent withdrawal on the ground that the Complainant himself handed over his ATM Card for the time being to someone else and divulged the PIN to such person who in turn withdrew money by using the ATM.
6. The opposite party, however, failed to prove such claim either by cross-examining the Complainant or by adducing evidence. During cross-examination no suggestion was even put to the Complainant that the ATM Card in question was handed over to someone by him.
7. Complainant in the complaint and in evidence stated that on receipt of 2 SMS on 26-10-2016 about withdrawal of money by using ATM from his account he immediately rushed to the Bank and came to know about other 5(Five) ATM
withdrawal of money from his account on 24-10-2016 and 25-10-16. All the withdrawals were made from Faridabad. Having come to know about withdrawal of total amount of Rs.1,20,092/- from his account the Complainant handed over his ATM Card to the Manager-in-charge of the Bank on 26-10-2016 itself and requested to block the ATM. Accordingly,ATM was blocked .
8. It is found an undisputed fact that prior to 26-10-2016 no SMS was sent by the Bank to the Complainant informing him about withdrawal on 24-10-2016 and 25-10-2016. In this regard, Complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party. Ext-2 is the copy of said complaint.
9. Evidently, opposite party failed to take any action on Ext-2. In its written version at para-10 the bank stated that the matter involves criminal offence like fraud and cyber crime and the Complainant has already lodged FIR with the Gohpur Police Station. So, the criminal law shall take action. But what about the complaint of not sending SMS about withdrawal that took place on 24-10-2016 and 25-1-2016 ? Is it not the duty and obligation on the part of the Bank to make any enquiry about such claim made by the Complainant? That apart, the ATM Card was available with the Complainant and the same was shown to the manager-in-charge of the opposite party Bank at Gohpur immediately after receipt of SMS. Under such situation how one can use the ATM card of the Complainant at Faridabad ? In view of the above facts and circumstances objection raised by the opposite party that the Complainant himself handed over his ATM Card to someone else and divulged PIN to such person in our considered opinion is not at all sustainable.
10. The opposite party being the issuing authority of ATM Card to the Account holder is duty bound to safeguard manipulation or any kind of fraud with the ATM Card. Here in the instant case opposite party failed to discharge its duty. The opposite party also failed to render service by forwarding SMS as to withdrawals made on 24-10-2016 and 25-10-2016.
11. Having regard to the discussion made above, point No.i) is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.ii):-Complainant has prayed for :-
i)Amount illegally withdrawn Rs.1,20,092/-
ii)Compensation for mental pain agony ,inconveniences etc. Rs. 50,000/-
iii)Cost of litigation Rs. 10,000/-
Rs.1,80,092/-
12. We have already found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank for which miscreants succeeded to withdraw Rs.1,20,092/- from the account of the Complainant by using ATM Card. The opposite party is therefore liable to refund the aforesaid amount with interest @6% per annum from the date of withdrawal. That apart, the opposite party is also liable to compensate the Complainant along with cost of litigation.
13. We, considering the entire facts and circumstances in its entirety, deem it just and proper to fix a lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and cost.
O R D E R
In the result, the complaint stands allowed on contest with cost and compensation. Opposite party is directed to refund to the complainant the sum of Rs.1,20,092/- with 6% thereon from the date of fraudulent withdrawal of the sum along with an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and cost. Opposite party is directed to comply with the award within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and order.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 22nd day of November, 2017.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered
( A.Devee)
President (A. DEVEE)
District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur President
Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (P.DAS) (SMT.S.BORA)
Member Member
