BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE URBAN

    14^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

CC 889/2019                                            

ORDER

SMT. P.K.SHANTHA, MEMBER

The Complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as OPs) to jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with general interest at 18% p.a. on account of withdrawal of amount and to pass such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The Complainant submits that she is having bank account bearing No.0402010036 with Op No.1 bank and that account facilitated with operating through ATM card.  Further she submits that on 19.07.2017 while she travelling from Sanjayanagar to Malleswaram in BMTC bus, her ATM card has stolen from her bag and on getting a message in a mobile in respect of withdrawal of amount from her account to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, immediately she approached the Op No.1 and intimated to block the account. Further she submits that on verification, it is found that amount was withdrawn at ATM Centre, Malleshwaram belongs to 2^nd OP.  Further complainant submits that as per the advice and request of OP No.1, she lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police i.e. OP No.3. 

Further complainant submits that in spite of repeated requests and enquiry, the OP Nos.1 and 2 did not make any efforts to work along with the third party and deliberately kept away from the matter without keeping mind that the service to the customer is an utmost motto of their institution as against a customer of their bank. Further she submits that the OPs did not bother to discharge their service leading to deficiency of service and negligence on the part of each of them. Complainant produced FIR, letter to Regional Manager of OP No.1 dated 02.07.2017, letter issued by third party to OP No.2 dated 29.12.2017, letter from OP No.2 to OP No.3 dated 29.01.2018, letter from third party to complainant dated 09.02.2018, letter to Police Commissioner by complainant dated 28.02.2018, letter to Chief Minister by complainant dated 07.04.2018 and letter to present Chief Minister dated 30.07.2018. For all the follow up and correspondences and approaches, the complainant did not get any justice.  Hence, she got issued legal notice to OPs for which OP No.2 replied.  Hence, this complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed version. Notice sent to OP No.2 duly served, called out absent, placed exparte.  After receiving the notice, OP No.3 appeared through its representative but not filed any version.

4. In the version of OP No.1, it submits that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  There is no any deficiency in services, therefore the complaint is not surviving for consideration.  Further Op No.1 submits that it deny all the allegations contained in the complaint.  The complainant is put to strict proof of those allegations that are not specifically admitted. There is no cause of action for filing the present complaint.  The complaint is a false and frivolous complaint.  Further OP No.1 submits that the averments made in para No.9 of the complaint is specifically denied as in correct and false. 

OP No.1 further submits that at the time of issuing ATM debit card to the customer/s, the Bank will provide PIN in sealed cover and the card holder can only know the PIN number to operate the ATM card.  Therefore, without using the Pin number how can the stolen person draw the alleged amount from SB account of the complainant. Further OP No.1 submits that ATM debit card holder is only an authorized person to use PIN number to withdrawal of amount.  There is a clear instructions mentioned in the PIN number sealed cover provided to the customers is “the bank will not be responsible in anyway, for the use of PIN by any in-authorized person and consequential loss to the customer thereon”. Accordingly, the complainant has no case/issue to file this complaint and same is shown as false complaint.  Hence, OP No.1 prays for dismissal of complaint with cost. The Complainant to substantiate her case filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents among them some are marked. OP.2 filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents among them some are marked.  Both filed written arguments. Heard both sides.

5. Complainant has filed affidavit evidence with documents which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14.  The OP No.1 has also filed affidavit evidence with documents which are marked as Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2.  Thereafter, complainant and OP No.1 filed their written arguments.  Heard.

6. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainants prove the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?
2. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:- In the negative

Point No.2:- As per final order

REASONS

8. Point No.1: We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by OP No.1.  The ATM PIN number provided by OP is a secret code and non-transferrable.  If it is fell into the wrong hand possibility of using the PIN number and drawing the amount cannot be evaded.

9. Further OP No.1 specifically stated that the ATM Debit card holder is only the authorized person to use PIN number to withdrawal of amount.  There is a clear instructions mentioned in the PIN number sealed cover provided to the customer’s is “the bank will not be responsible in anyway, for the use of PIN by any un-authorized person and consequential loss to the customer thereon” – complainant ought to have been careful.

10. Even though the complainant filed the complaint before the police, the image date was not furnished within 90 days.  Under such circumstances, it is difficult for the police to find out who has used the PIN number and draw the amount. In this context, we do not find any merits in the complaint hence liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we answered the point No.1 in the negative.

          11. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
2. Looking to the circumstances, we direct both the parties to bear their own costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 14^th day of September, 2021)

Copies of Documents produced by the Complainant:

Copies of Documents produced by OP No.1