Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The complaint case since been decided in favour of the Complainant, aggrieved with such decision, this Appeal is moved by Andhra Bank.

In short, case of the Complainant is that, she opened a savings account in the OP Bank and was operating the said account by depositing/withdrawing money therefrom. At the time of opening the said account, the OP No. 1 issued a debit card to her.  It is the case of the Complainant that she never asked for availing of ‘net banking’ facility or ‘on-line purchase’ facility and never done any ‘net banking’ and ‘on-line’ transaction.  Despite this, on 14-02-2013, after updating the passbook, she noticed series of unauthorized transactions in respect of her savings account using her debit card in between the period 10-02-2013 and 14-02-2013.  Taken completely aback, on the very same day, the Complainant reported the matter to the OP Bank, but the same did not evoke any positive response.  Therefore, the complaint case was filed.

The OPs, in their WV stated that they were not concerned with the fact whether the Complainant herself went abroad or not but fact remains that the said card was used from the foreign soil either by her or by her close relations or associates for carrying out the disputed transactions. 

Decision with remains

Both sides were heard in the matter and documents on record gone through.

It is the case of the Respondent that she never asked for providing ‘net-banking’ facility in respect of her debit card.  In this respect, the Appellants have not put forth any credible evidence to prove her wrong. 

Therefore, while the Respondent did not opt for the said facility, the Appellants owed due explanation under what authority they effected the said facility in respect of the account of the Appellant.  Clearly, taking undue advantage of the loopholes in the net banking system of the Appellants, the unidentified miscreants siphoned off money from the account of the Respondent.  The Appellants cannot, under any circumstances, shrug off their responsibility for acting without due authority from the Appellant and also on account of their utter failure to safeguard the hard-earned money of the Respondent.

The innocence of the Respondent also becomes evident from the fact that such unauthorized transactions took place from foreign soil in between the period from 10-02-2013 and 14-02-2013; whereas, the Respondent claimed to have lodged complaint with the Appellant Bank on that day itself.  If the Appellants had slightest doubt about the honesty/integrity of the Respondent, they could ask her to show the debit card to put at rest all doubt in this regard.  For some obscure reasons, the Appellants did not do so.

Therefore, in our considered opinion, the instant case was rightly allowed in favour of the Respondent. 

The Appeal is bereft of any merit.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- being payable by the Appellants to the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.