DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 84/2015
Date of Institution : 04.05.2015
Date of Decision : 01.10.2015
Janak Raj son of Sh. Ramji Dass resident of Shakti Nagar, Gali No. 4 Bajakhana Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. The State Bank of Patiala Head Office The Mall Patiala through its authorized person/GM.
2. The Manager State Bank of Patiala main Branch Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. J.P.S. Uggoke counsel for the complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal counsel for the opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
Sh. Karnail Singh : Member.
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member.
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Janak Raj has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against State Bank of Patiala & others (hereinafter called as the opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant is having a Bank Account No. 55142785680 in the State Bank of Patiala Branch Sangrur. It is alleged that on 23.2.2015, the complainant visited the ATM installed in the State Bank of Patiala Main Branch and had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 5,000/- at about 3.50 PM from the above said account.
3. It is alleged that some unknown person had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 17,000/- from the account of the complainant and on 24.2.2015, the complainant brought this fact to the notice of the opposite parties through written application. It is further alleged that the Bank officials are duty bound to safeguard the ATM and also to keep the account of the complainant in safe custody. It is also alleged that the complainant applied for the supply of bank statement and the same was supplied on 3.3.2015 and from the bank statement, it was cleared that an amount of Rs. 17,000/- was withdrawn on 23.2.2015 just after the withdrawal of amount of Rs. 5,000/- by the complainant. It is further alleged that the identity of the person, who stolen the amount of Rs. 17,000/- from the account of the complainant has been established from the footage of CCTV Camera installed in the Bank. It is further alleged that the matter was reported to the SHO Police Station Kotwali Barnala through written complaint on 24.2.2015, but the Police failed to take any action. It is further alleged that the opposite parties failed to transfer the amount of Rs. 17,000/- in the account of the complainant. So, there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
1. To transfer an amount of Rs. 17,000/- in the above said account of the complainant.
2. To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed joint written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of locus-standi or cause of action, jurisdiction, flagrant abuse of process of law and maintainability. On merits, it is pleaded that the ATM machine installed outside the Bank premises was used by the complainant. The ATM machine does not respond if any person, who installed his ATM Card in the machine to withdraw the amount without secret PIN number. The complainant himself is a negligent person and without sharing his ATM PIN number, the amount cannot be withdrawn from the ATM machine and the complainant is the best custodian of his ATM Card and its PIN number. It is further averred that the opposite parties supplied the CCTV footage of the ATM to the complainant and also supplied the copy of account statement to the complainant on his request. It is further averred that the complainant himself admitted the fact that CCTV footage supplied by the opposite parties to him verifying the person, who cheated the complainant as alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that it is crystal clear that the present case falls within the jurisdiction of Illaqa Police not falls within the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of complaint to Police Ex.C-2, copy of complaint to Branch Manager SBOP Ex.C-3, photographs Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Ved Parkash Bansal Ex.O.P-1, photographs Ex.O.P-2 and Ex.O.P-3, copy of E-mail Ex.O.P-4, copy of Ej log Ex.O.P-5, copy of ATM withdrawal account statement Ex.O.P-6 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his own affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein he has reiterated the same version as mentioned in the complaint. Apart from his sworn affidavit, the complainant has placed on record application submitted to the SHO Police Station Kotwali, Barnala Ex.C-2, wherein he has stated that Rs. 17,000/- was withdrawn by some person from his Account No. 55142785680 State Bank of Patiala Sangrur. There is also an another application given by the complainant to the Manager State Bank of Patiala Main Branch Barnala dated 24.2.2015 Ex.C-3, informing that Rs. 17,000/- was withdrawn from his account by someone. The complainant has also relied upon the CCTV footage Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7. On the basis of the above referred to evidence, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs. 17,000/- alongwith compensation and interest.
9. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Branch Manager namely Ved Parkash Ex.O.P-1, who has stated that the complainant is the best custodian of his ATM Card and secret PIN number and the complainant was himself in default, if he shared his PIN number with anybody. In the affidavit the Branch Manager further submitted that the ATM Machine which is installed outside of the Bank premises has been used by the complainant and ATM Machine does not respond if any person who installed his ATM Card in the Machine to withdraw the amount without secret PIN number. The Branch Manager further submitted that the Bank has supplied CCTV footage of the ATM to the complainant on his request and also supplied copy of the account statement and moreover from the CCTV footage the complainant himself admitted the identification of the person, who cheated the complainant. The Branch Manager also submitted that the present case falls within the jurisdiction of Illaqa Police and not falls in the Consumer Protection Act. Apart from his detailed affidavit, the opposite parties have placed on record the CCTV footage of dated 23.2.2015 at 15:53:31 & 15:55:01 Ex.O.P-2 and Ex.O.P-3. The payment receipts from the ATM Ex.O.P-5 and the copy of the ATM withdrawal account statement Ex.O.P-6. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties have also relied upon IV (2013) CPJ 10A (CN) (WB) West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, State Bank of Inida Vs Rita Ghosh. On the basis of the evidence adduced above and the judgment as referred to above, the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and if any withdrawal has been made by some person other than the complainant it was due to the negligence of the complainant as he might have shared his ATM PIN number with that person, as without PIN number no withdrawal is possible.
10. In the affidavit Ex.C-1 filed by the complainant he has specifically mentioned that he visited the ATM on 23.2.2015 and has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 5,000/- at about 3.50 PM.
11. Perusal of the ATM slip Ex.O.P-5 also shows that Rs. 5,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant from his account at 15:55. The ATM slip Ex.O.P-5 further shows that again on 23.2.2015 at 15:59 by the same ATM ID and Card number Rs. 17,000/- was withdrawn. Both these transactions have been duly reflected in the ATM transaction statement Ex.O.P-6. The CCTV footage Ex.O.P-2 and Ex.O.P-3 also shows the operation of the ATM.
12. On the other hand the complainant has not denied the operation of the ATM with his ATM Card and secret PIN number. It is also not disputed that the ATM Card as well as the secret PIN number is in the control and possession of the complainant. This Forum also affirms the view of the opposite parties that no cash from the account of the complainant could have been withdrawn without the use of ATM Card and with the use of secret PIN number. No doubt the complainant had denied the transaction of Rs. 17,000/-, but if it is so, the ATM Card would have been stolen or some other person might have withdrawn the said amount and the secret PIN number must have been disclosed by the complainant to the person who withdrew the cash.
13. We are of the opinion that if the amount of Rs. 17,000/- have been withdrawn by some unauthorized person it is the negligence on the part of complainant. Therefore, it cannot be held that the opposite parties are at fault and there is any deficiency in service on their part.
14. In IV (2013) CPJ 10A (CN) (Supra) in Para 5 it was held that in view of the elaborate procedure evolved by bank it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorized person from ATM without ATM Card and knowledge of PIN and the complainant was held not entitled to any relief.
15. As a result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to proceed against unauthorized person by approaching the Police. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due completion.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
1st Day of October, 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh) Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
