Haryana

Kurukshetra

138/2016

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syndicate Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Bhasin

06 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.138/16.

Date of instt. 16.5.16. 

                                                Date of Decision: 06.03.18.

 

Naresh Kumar son of Mohkam Singh, resident of House No.531/A, Ward No.9, Gopi Vihar Colony, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

       

                                          …Complainant. 

                        Versus      

 

1. Syndicate Bank Shahbad Markanda, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.
2. Syndicate Bank, through its General Manager, No.6, Bhagwan Dass Road, Sarojihi House, New Delhi.

…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before              Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

                       Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.s

 

Present:             Sh. Sanjiv Bhasin, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Pawan Gupta , Adv. for the OPs.

 

  

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Naresh Kumar against Syndicate Bank and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is having an account bearing No.82062200009703 in the branch of Op No.1 and the complainant got the CC Limit amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- in branch of Op NO.1 vide account No.8206801194. The complainant also got issued ATM Card from the OP and availed the SMS facility on his mobile No.9991281431 from the Ops. The complainant has received a call from unknown person, who has impersonated himself as the employee of OP No.1 and informed that the ATM card has become blocked and then he got the ATM card number of the complainant for the purpose of unblocking the ATM card. The complainant under the utmost good faith has disclosed the ATM card number to the said person and at that time the complainant was having an amount of Rs.29,546/- in his account. The complainant came to know that the amount is being debited from his account and then the complainant was also surprised to know that the OP No.1 has transferred the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from his CC Limit. The total amount of Rs.1,57,000/- i.e. a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- from CC limit and Rs.27,000/- from saving account of the complainant has been illegally withdrawn. The complainant approached the OP No.1 many a time and requested to take action against the culprits and to refund/credit the entire amount in his account but no positive response has been given by the Ops. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the present complaint has been moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to credit/refund the amount of Rs.1,57,000/- in his account along with 18% interest per annum, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections alleging that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant himself disclosed his ATC card number etc. to some person. No person of common prudence will ever disclose his ATM card number etc. to any stranger. As per the own showing of the complainant, he disclosed his ATM card number to some other person so now he cannot be allowed t take benefit of his wrongs. The answering OP has specifically displaced in the branch premises as well as in the ATM cabin that bank will never ask its customer for disclosing their ATM number. The account holders have also been cautioned that they should not disclose the details of their ATM number to any person. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

6.            It is own case of the complainant that on receiving a car from unknown person, he informed regarding the ATM card and then he got the ATM card number of the complainant for the purpose of unblocking ATM card.  At this stage the complainant came to know that the amount is being debited from his account and then the complainant was also surprised to know that the Op No.1 transferred the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from his CC limit.  The total amount of Rs.1,57,000/- i.e. a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- from CC limit and Rs.27,000/- from saving account of the complainant has been withdrawn.

                In such like circumstance, when the complainant himself has told about the ATM card and saving bank account, he was duty bound to inform the concerned Manager in this regard.  However, he failed to inform the concerned Manager in this regard.  In such like circumstances, the Ops cannot be said to be at fault for transferring the amount from the ATM and saving bank account of the complainant.

                So, in such like circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove his case and as such, there is no merit in the complaint of complainant.  The complaint being without any merit is hereby dismissed.  Copies of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated: 06.03.2018.                                              (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member