Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/85

Wisakha Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Singh Dhingra

14 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      85 of 2018

Date of Institution:  21.05.2018

Date of Decision :   14.05.2019

 

Wisakha Singh  aged about 65 years son of Gurdip Singh resident of Anand Nagar, Faridkot Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil  Kotkapuras  District Faridkot.

                                         

                                                                                                    .........Complainant

Versus   

 

1.  State Bank of Patiala, now State Bank of India, Main Branch at Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot through its Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of Patiala, now State Bank of India, Regional Business Office at Bathinda through its Regional Manager.

                                                                                                    .............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Mandeep Singh, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

               Sh. Ravinder Goyal, Ld Counsel for Ops.

                                                cc no.- 85 of 2018

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to credit the amount of Rs.39,980/-wrongly debited by them alongwith interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                      Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a retired government official and he has a saving bank account bearing no.65141250264 with OP-1. It is submitted that on 11.01.2017, complainant received a telephonic call from mobile number 74619-06869 and on asking the complainant he told him that person making call is speaking from State Bank of Patiala and  said person asked him about his ATM Card Number Detail. As the person speaking from other side was from Bank, therefore, complainant gave him his ATM Card Number but he did not give him his pin code and then, said person told complainant that complainant would receive a message in short duration. It is further submitted that after that, complainant received a message showing that amount of Rs.19,990/-was debited from his account. Just after few seconds, complainant again received another message that stated that Rs.19,990/-was again debited from his saving account. In this way, Rs.39,980/-were illegally debited from the account of complainant. Complainant

cc no.- 85 of 2018

immediately approached OP-1 and submitted his application to OPs and also forwarded copies of his application to SSP, Faridkot, Sr Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Cyber Crime Police Station, DSP Cyber Crime, SAS Nagar but no action was taken on application of complainant. complainant also got recorded FIR to this effect. It is further submitted that mobile number of complainant is registered with OP-1 bank and he often receives calls and messages from OP-1 regarding transactions made and believing the bank authorities, he gave his card detail to said person, but action of OPs in debiting this amount from the account of complainant amounts to negligence of officials of OPs. Complainant approached OPs again and again and made several requests to OPs to take action against the fraud played upon him, but they refused to consider his requests and this act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for directing OPs to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                           The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 23.05.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, the OPs filed written statement wherein admitted that their bank use to float messages to its

cc no.- 85 of 2018

customers and have also displaced precautions through messages and publication that ATM/Debit/Credit card number should not be shared with any one as bank never asks about the same. It is denied by OPs that amount of Rs.39,980/-is wrongly debited from the account of complainant, rather this amount is debited as per withdrawal through ATM. There is no negligence on the part of answering OPs as bank never asks its customers regarding any kind of ATM/Debit/Credit Card detail and in reality negligence is on the part of complainant. Request received from complainant was duly considered and after enquiry it was transpired that this matter does not relate to any kind of act by bank. Complainant is not entitled for relief sought by him. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and asserted that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and have also denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed their evidence.

6                                      In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanju Banga Chief Manager State Bank of

 

cc no.- 85 of 2018

India, Kotkapura Ex OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7                      We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                      From the careful perusal of record and evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that it is admitted case of parties that complainant is that he is having saving account with Ops. It is also admitted by OPs in their written statement that amount of Rs.39,980/-was debited from the account of complainant. there is no denial to the fact that complainant immediately reported the matter to OPs. Grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of application and several verbal requests, OPs have failed to redress his grief, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, Ops stressed mainly on the point that bank authorities never made any call seeking ATM detail of complainant and even through publication and by floating messages, they have given instructions to all customers to not to disclose their ATM detail to anyone on mobile phone as bank never makes any

                                               

cc no.- 85 of 2018

such calls requiring any information about detail of ATM Card or pin code of its customers. It is averred that withdrawal of Rs.39,980/-has been made through ATM Card and matter involved in present complaint does not relate to any act of bank.  Bank has not deducted any amount illegally and complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought by him.

9                                 To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant placed on record document Ex C-4 that is copy of application given by complainant to Paytm Headquarters in which he narrated his grievance that fraud was played upon him through negligence of bank authorities. Complainant submitted and forwarded copy of this application to SSP, Faridkot, Sr Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Kotkapura, Cyber Crime Police Station, SAS Nagar and Patiala for taking action against unlawful deductions caused by OPs from the bank account of complainant. Further from the ExC-5 copy of FIR No.26 dated 4.03.2019, it is  transpired that amount in question was debited from the account of complainant through the transactions made by OPs. Through affidavit ExC-1 complainant has reiterated his grievance.  Ex C-2 is copy of legal notice issued by complainant to Ops vide which he made requests to OPs to redress his grievance and made prayers for crediting the amount of  Rs.39,980/-illegally and unlawfully debited by Ops from the account of complainant.

 

                                                cc no.- 85 of 2018

10                                  The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant never disclosed his password to anybody. These transactions were made by some third person by hacking the system of bank. There is no negligence on the part of the complainant in this fraudulent transaction. There is if any fault that is in the system of the bank. On coming to know, the complainant immediately made complaint with the opposite parties regarding these transaction, which is duly registered and admitted by the opposite parties. As per direction of Reserve Bank of India in case of such fraudulent entry the bank is liable to reverse this amount in the account of customer within ten working days vide its Circular dated 6.7.2017. Some phrase out of circular dated 6.7.2017 of Reserve Bank of India regarding reversal of erroneous debits arising from fraudulent or other transactions, are as under:-

Limited Liability of a Customer

(a) Zero Liability of Customer

6. A customer’s entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorized transaction occurs in the following events:

(i) Contributory fraud /negligence /deficiency in service on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer)

                                          

 

                                           cc no.- 85 of 2018

 

(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 regarding the unauthorized transaction.

 Reversal Timeline for Zero Liability/ Limited Liability of customer.

 9. On being notified by the customer, the bank shall credit (shadow reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorized electronic transaction to the customer’s account within 10 working days from the date of such notification by the customer (without waiting for settlement of insurance claim, if any) Banks may also at their discretion decide to waive off any customer liability in case of unauthorized electronic banking transactions even in cases of customer negligence. The credit shall be value dated to be as of the date of the unauthorized transaction.

Burden of proof

 12 The burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorized electronic banking transactions shall lie on the bank.

                           From this circular it is clear that the Reserve Bank of India directed the bank to treat it zero liability of the customers in case of any unauthorized transaction and directed the bank to credit (shadow reversal) the

cc no.- 85 of 2018

 

amount involved in the unauthorized electronic transaction within 10 working days and the burden to prove customer liability in such cases was also lie on the bank. In the present case also, with regard to the unauthorized transaction in question. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the bank and as per instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, the bank was liable to reverse the amount involved in the unauthorized transaction in the account of the complainant within 10 days, but they failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

11                                    Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings and all documents placed on record are authentic and are beyond any doubt. There is no doubt that amount of Rs.39,980/-has been debited from the account of complainant and version of Ops that this amount is debited due to transactions made by complainant through his ATM Card has not legs to stand upon in the light of legal notice Ex C-2 in which it is clearly stated that complainant neither handed over his ATM Card to anyone nor ever disclosed his ATM Card Number and pin code to anyone. Moreover, Ops have not placed on record any documentary evidence to prove that amount in question is debited from the account of complainant due to withdrawal made by complainant by way of using his ATM Card. OPs have no

cc no.- 85 of 2018

 

right to make any transaction or to debit any amount from the account of complainant without any written consent or instructions of complainant. Complainant has not made any written request by filling withdrawal form or given any draft or cheque to OPs to debit this amount from his account. Transactions made by Ops by debiting Rs.39,980/-from the account of complainant without his consent or written instructions, amount to an irresponsible and illegal act. All this occurred due to illegal debits made by bank authorities. Banks are made to keep the public money safe and secure and money placed in bank is considered as fully protected but action of OPs in debiting the amount in question from the account of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

12                                                          From the above discussion and in the light of careful perusal of evidence and documents placed on record and pleading made by parties,  this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops in debiting Rs.39,980/-from the account of complainant without taking prior consent of complaint. OPs have further aggravated the grievance of complainant by not taking action of genuine requests of complainant. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with directions to Ops to credit the amount of Rs.39,980/-into the account of

cc no.- 85 of 2018

complainant. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.  Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 14.05.2019

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)              (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                      Member                                   President