Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the service extended by Allahabad BankHindmotor Branch, related to blocking of an ATM card and follow up action taken by the bank, the instant case has been filed by the complainant, u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The fact of the case is as follows
The complainant with his wife holds a joint account in the particular branch of the aforementioned bank and by virtue of maintenance of that account holds also a Rupay debit card. (Contd.)
Now reportedly,
- the complainant on receipt of certain fishy calls from ‘different numbers’ seeking the details of the bank account and corresponding details of the debit card, approached the service centre of the bank and asked them to block the said card with a premonition of some imminent fraud.
- The said card was blocked as claimed by the petitioner on 10.07.2019 at 3:10 P.M.
- However, from the sms sent to his registered mobile no. the complainant came to know that Rs.52,550/- was debited from his account to several other accounts on 11.07.2019 i.e. on the very next day.
- The complainant agitates over the fact that in spite of informing the entire development, the bank was indifferent and denied to turn back the amount involved in the alleged fraud.
Resultantly, the complainant in his petition prays for refund of the amount of Rs.52,500/- alleged to have been siphoned off from his account in a fraudulent manner, Rs.50,000/- as compensation cost and Rs.10,000/- against litigation cost.
Issues for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
- Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.
Decision with reason
Issue No. 1
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are concerned.
Issue No. 2
Both the complainant and the opposite party are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-
Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Issue No. 3 and 4
Materials on records are perused. The issues being mutually inter-related, are taken together for convenient disposal. (contd.)
The complainant in support of the allegation leveled against the opposite parties who belong to the same organization, has submitted certain documents viz. photocopies of 1) the first page of the bank passbook, 2) the particular page of the pass book in which the amounts debited from the account after blocking are reflected, 3) the debit card, 4) the communication made by the concerned Advocate to the bank and print outs of the sms received from the bank incorporated in two sheets of paper (both sides).
Now the question revolves around two issues. Firstly, whether request was made to the bank to block the debit card and secondly, even if there was any such request in this regard, whether the card was blocked at all.
It is a fact that in almost all the cases telephonic requests are made to the banks by their customers to block debit cards and banks, depending on certain telephonic verification of the whereabouts of the customers, proceeds accordingly. So in these cases no conclusive evidence of making such a request can be expected. But when a bank blocks a debit card, sends a sms to the concerned customer in this regard. However in the print-outs of the sms received from the bank, no such sms is found. But from several sms received by the complainant it is found that during the material period a debit card of State Bank of India was also blocked by the complainant. The communication made by the concerned Advocate to the opposite party no.1 i.e. Allahabad Bank also mentions that the card was blocked on 10.07.19 at 3-10 P.M. as per ‘their version’ i.e. the bank’s version. Even then, the bank cannot shrug off their responsibility in this regard. The bank was supposed to block the card as soon as a request in this regard was received from the complainant.
However the case runs ex parte against the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not feel it necessary to defend their case. No documents from the bank’s end have been submitted before this commission.
It will be worth mentioning that by a press release dtd.28.03.2020 Reserve Bank of India has intimated that the branches of Allahabad Bank were to operate as branches of Indian Bank from 01.04.2020, consequent of amalgamation of Allahabad Bank into Indian Bank. Thus, in the instant case the present opposite parties belong to Indian Bank.
On meticulous scrutiny of all the aspects of the case, this Commission is of the view that there was deficiency of serviceon the bank’s part. However the opposite party No.2 i.e. the Regional Manager of the bank did not have any substantial role in this case. The complainant also did not lodge any complaint before the said authority.
Hence it is
ORDERED
That the complainant case no.179/19 be and the same succeeds on contest but on part.
The opposite party No.1 i.e. the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Hindmotor branch is directed to pay back the amount of Rs.52,550/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. Besides, the petitioner is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- for litigation cost. (contd.)
In the event of failure to comply with this order, the opposite party no.1 will pay cost of Rs.10,000/- by depositing the same in the Consumer Legal Aid account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in
Drafted and typed by me.
