DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., President
Smt.S.Lalitha, Member, M.A., M.L.,
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Friday, the 29th day of October, 2010
C.C.NO.99/2010
Between:
Y.Chenna Krishna Reddy
S/o Y.Sanjeeva Reddy
School Assistant, M.P.U.P.School
Kunuthur Village, Dharmavaram (M)
Anantapur District. … Complainant.
Vs.
The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Dharmavaram Branch
Anantapur District. … Opposite Party.
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu and Sri N.Anand, advocates for the complainant and Sri N.R.K.Mohan and Sri A.Suresh Kumar, advocates for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, President: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party to direct him to credit the amount of Rs.13,230/-, which was excessively credited from his S.B. Account, an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses as prayed for in the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the amended complaint are that: -The complainant is resident of Kunuthur Village of Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District. The complainant being a Government Employee opened an account for his salary and for his purpose with the opposite party and became the customer of the opposite party Bank under account bearing No.11095745500 and the opposite party also provided ATM Card facility in favour of the complainant. The complainant is using ATM Card bearing No.6220180025000052172 and Savings Bank Account. While so, on 23-03-2010 the account of the complainant shows 5 transactions with a debit of Rs.2,430/- each , total amount of Rs.12,150/- and on 27-03-2010 an amount of Rs.3,510/- in total an amount of Rs.15,660/-. On 27-03-2010 an amount of Rs.2,430/- has been credited in the Savings Bank Account of the complainant. There is an amount of Rs.13,230/- have been excessively debited from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant. The complainant surprised to see that the deduction of such huge amount of Rs.13,230/- from his account and made several representations to the Branch to credit it, which resulted in a failure. Hence, the complainant has issued a notice through his counsel on 11-06-2010 to rectify the mistake and to adjust the amount so deducted. The opposite party gave reply through his counsel stating that the Branch is nothing to do with the transaction of the POS and to approach the Cyber Police Station for redressal of the grievance and also gave statement showing the transaction alleged to be made by the complainant. In the statement, ATM Card number is mentioned as 6220180025000050000, which is not belonging to the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. As a result, the complainant has suffered mental agony and monitory loss of Rs.13,230/-, which has been deducted by the opposite party. Hence, the complainant having no other go has filed this complaint against the opposite party to direct him to pay the amount as claimed in the complaint with costs.
3. The opposite party filed counter and contended that this opposite party is nothing to do with the operation of account by the complainant. The amount is drawn under POS (Point of Sales). The amount can not be drawn by this opposite party. For drawing the amount PIN number is essential one. Unless the PIN number is known, the amount can not be drawn by anybody. The complainant or anybody who is aware of his PIN number and card number can meddle with the account of the complainant. In fact, there was news item in Eeenadu Daily dt.22-08-2010 with regard to Cyber Crimes. The said news item discloses the cyber crimes, which have been committed in various places in Anantapur District. This opposite party has given proper reply to the notice issued by the complainant. There is a mistake in the ATM Card number in the statement given to the complainant along-with reply notice. It is only a type mistake and the said transaction pertains to the complainant account. The computer account statement is filed along-with this counter. This opposite party is not liable to pay any amount much less the amount claimed in the complaint. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The opposite party filed additional counter and contended that there is negligence on the part of the complainant in not maintaining secrecy of PIN number or card number. The negligence of the complainant led to such cyber crime for which Bank is not liable for deficiency of service. The complainant is not able to establish the fact that he has not drawn the amount and the Bank authorities have drawn the amount. Unless and until the amount is drawn by that ATM Card, the question of debiting the amount does not arise. There is no mistake on the part of the Bank. The alleged loss of the complainant is out of his own negligence. The operations done by the complainant or any customer with their ATM Cards are not controlled by this opposite party-Bank.
5. On considering the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? If so,
whether the complainant is entitled in respect of the amount claimed in the
complaint from the opposite party as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
6. On behalf of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A3 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, the evidence on affidavit of the opposite party has been filed and marked Exs.B1 and B2 documents.
7. Heard both sides.
8. POINT NO.1 - The counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is using ATM Card issued by the opposite party. He contended that pass book of the complainant shows that on 23-03-2010 five transactions with a debit of Rs.2,430/- each , total amount of Rs.12,150/- and on 27-03-2010 one transaction with a debit of Rs.3,510/- in total amount of Rs.15,660/- was debited from the S.B. Account of the complainant as if the complainant has withdrawn the said amounts through ATM Card of the complainant. He contended that on 27-03-2010 a sum of Rs.2,430/- has been credited in the Savings Bank Account of the complainant. Thus Rs.13,230/- have been excessively debited from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant made several representations to the Branch of the opposite party with regard to the said debit amount since the complainant has not withdrawn the said amount through ATM Card But the opposite party did not respond properly. Hence, the complainant has issued notice through his counsel on 11-06-2010 to rectify the mistake and to adjust the amount so deducted. After receiving the notice, the opposite party issued a reply stating that the opposite party is nothing to do with the transaction of P.O.S. and to approach Cyber Police Station for redressal of the grievance and also gave statement showing the transaction alleged to be made by the complainant. He contended that ATM Card mentioned in the statement do not belong to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant having no other go has filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to credit a sum of Rs.13,230/- to his account, which was excessively credited from his account and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the complaint. He contended that the evidence on affidavit of the complainant as well as Ex.A1 Statement of Account filed by the complainant clearly goes to prove the fact that the amounts were wrongly debited to his Savings Bank Account on 23-03-2010 five times a sum of Rs.2,430/- and on 27-03-2010 Rs.3,510/- though the complainant has not withdrawn the said amounts through ATM Card. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party for not rectifying the said mistake. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the amount as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party.
9. The counsel for the opposite party contended that there is no documentary proof to show that the complainant has made a complaint with regard to wrong debits shown in the account of the complainant on 23-03-2010 for a sum of Rs.2,430/- 5 times amounting to Rs.12,150/- and on 27-03-2010 for a sum of Rs.3,510/- . He further contended that the opposite party has given proper reply under Ex.A3 in respect of the notice issued by the complainant and also submitted the statement of particulars of the transactions made by the complainant under P.O.S. He contended that the complainant alone will be knowing the PIN No. of the ATM Card and if the amount is to be withdrawn through ATM Card by using ATM Card , one must know the PIN No. then only the amount can be drawn. In the instant case when the complainant is in possession of the ATM Card, it is the duty of the complainant to keep ATM Card safely so that the others may not know his PIN No. He contended that except the complainant, there is no scope for the opposite party to withdraw the amount from the account of the complainant through ATM Card. Therefore, the opposite party is not liable to pay the amount as claimed in the complaint and that therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
10. It is an admitted fact that every ATM Card holder will have secret PIN No. and the ATM Cardholder should not reveal his PIN No. to anybody; other-wise there is every possibility to draw the amount from his ATM Card by other persons if they knew PIN No. ATM Card holder can also change PIN No. frequently so that the other persons may not operate his account through his ATM Card.
11. As seen from Ex.A1 pass book of the complainant, it clearly goes to show that on 23-03-2010 five 5 times a sum of Rs.2,430/- was withdrawn through P.O.S. and on 27-03-2010 a sum of Rs.3,510/- was also withdrawn and the said amount has been debited from the account of the complainant. Further it is also shown on 27-03-2010 a sum of Rs.2,430/- was credited to his account. In Ex.A1 generally used abbreviations have been mentioned. POS means point of sale. Thus the transactions shown on 23-03-2010 in respect of the amount of Rs.2,430/- debited 5 times relates to POS ATM purchase and the transaction shown on 27-03-2010inrespect of the amount of Rs.3,510/- also relates to POS ATM purchase, which shows that on those days there was purchase something either by the complainant or the person to whom ATM PIN No of the complainant was known and paid its costs through ATM Card of the complainant. Therefore, considering the said facts and circumstances, it can not be said that the opposite party has wrongly debited the said amounts from the account of the complainant as contended by the counsel for the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and that therefore, the opposite party is not liable to pay to the complainant the amount as claimed in the complaint. Accordingly, this point is answered.
12. POINT NO.2: – In the result, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. In the circumstances each party do bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open
Forum, this the 29th day of October, 2010.
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY:
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Photo copy of Generally used abbreviations issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A2 - Office copy of legal notice dt.11-06-2010 got issued by the complainant to the
Opposite party.
Ex.A3 - Reply notice dt.19-06-2010 got issued by the opposite party to the counsel for the
complainant.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSTE PARTY
Ex.B1 - Photo copy of Statement of account relating to the complainant issued by the
opposite party.
Ex.B2 - Paper Publication dt.22-08-2010 of Eenadu Daily Newspaper (Anantapur edition).
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
