DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 208/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
16.09.2021 17.11.2021 10.06.2024
Complainant/s:- | LAL BAHADUR SHAW, Son of late Manohar Shaw of 67/B, Belayat Ali Road, near Kali Mandir P.O. – Talpukur, P.S. – Titagarh, Kolkata – 700123, Dist. – North 24 Parganas. -Vs.- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, TALPUKUR BRANCH, Office situated at 7, K.N. Mukherjee Road, P.O. – Talpukur, P.S. – Titagarh, Kolkata – 700123, Dist. – North 24 Parganas.
- REGIONAL MANAGER, State Bank of India, RBO – III, Bidhannagar Module office at CIT Building, 1/16, 4th, VIP Road, Kankurgachi, Kolkata – 700054, P.S. – Bidhannagar North, P.O. – Kankurgachi.
- DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, Bidhannagar Modul, Kolkata Circle, Registered office situated at CIT Building, 1/16, 4th, VIP Road, P.O. Kankurgachi, P.S. Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700054.
|
| | | |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint U/s 35 read with section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party praying for refund of amount of Rs. 1,23,500/- along with interest, compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-, further compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, cost of the case amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and other reliefs.
He alleged that he has a Savings A/c at O.P No. 1. Due to his old age he is unable to read or write English and for that reason he did not possess any ATM card in respect of aforesaid Savings Bank A/c till date.
Due to COVID-19 pandemic he could not visit the bank for last one year. In the month of February 2021 he visited the O.P No. 1 and updated his Passbook and as per his request O.P No. 1 issued statement of accounts in his favour and on perusal of the same it was revealed that an amount of Rs. 1,23,500/- more or less had wrongly been deducted from his aforesaid account through ATM card on different dates and no SMS was delivered to him.
He asked the O.P No. 1 about the said transaction and he informed the Complainant that one ATM card has been issued to him and through the said ATM card all the aforesaid amounts have withdrawn. He informed the O.P No. 1 that he had not possess any ATM card. Complainant never applied for any ATM card in respect of the aforesaid account. Thereafter, he requested the O.P No. 1 to stop the ATM card transaction immediately. Thereafter, O.P No. 1 stopped the aforesaid ATM card. Thereafter, Complainant requested the O.P No. 1 to realize the aforesaid misappropriated amount then O.P No. 1 advised him to report before the concerned police station.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 208/2021
Thereafter, Complainant lodged one F.I.R. before the Titagarh P.S. Thereafter, Titagarh P.S. started case no. 191/2021 dated 13/03/2021. But till date aforesaid amount was not realized in his account, hence the Complainant filed this case.
O.P No. 1-3 appeared in this record and filed W/V and denied the entire allegations of the Complainant. They contended the case is not maintainable, case is baseless, vague, frivolous and devoid of merits. They further contended that Complainant has no cause of action and there is no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps.
They further contended that Complainant opened aforesaid account from O.P No. 1 on Digital Platform i.e. YONO app and entire account processing work was started through OTP verification and same was done on mobile and finger authentication done with Aadhar Card.
ATM cards were issued by default. Complainant withdrew Rs. 1,000/- on 22/03/2019 by ATM. He also deposited Rs. 1,000/- at Green Channel Counter on 29/03/2019.
One UPI transaction of Rs. 399/- was done by the customer. Again on 13/08/2019 Complainant deposited Rs. 13,500/- through ATM card. Customer is depositing and withdrawing amount time to time by the said card. With reference to the statement that Complainant made transaction. They denied that Rs. 1,23,500/- more or less has wrongly been deducted from his account. They prayed for dismissal of the case.
TRIAL
During Trial, Complainant filed affidavit – in – chief. O.Ps did not put any questionnaire.
Documents
Complainant filed the following documents. These documents were verified at the time of hearing argument:-
- Copy of Bank Passbook in the name of Complainant.
- Copy of letter of complainant addressed to Titagarh P.S. dated 13/03/2021.
- Copy of letter of complainant addressed to O.P No. 1 dated 30/06/2021.
- Copies of postal receipt in a sheet.
- Copies of track report in three sheets.
- Copy of letter issued by Sanjit Pandit addressed to O.P No. 1.
- Copy of reply issued by O.P No. 1 to Titagarh P.S. dated 23/04/2021.
During argument, Complainant produced the following documents:-
i) Copy of letter dated 23/04/2021 issued by O.P No. 1 to S.I. Titagarh P.S.
ii) Copy of letter of Complainant dated 04/03/2021 addressed to O.P No. 1.
iii) Copy of letter by which information was sought for by the Titagarh P.S. addressed to O.P No. 1.
iv) Copy of Bank Statement……….2 sheets………Xerox.
v) Copy of letter dated 13/03/2021 issued by Complainant addressed to I/C Titagarh P.S.
vi) Copy of letter dated 30/06/2021 issued by Complainant addressed to O.P No. 1.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 208/2021
BNA
Complainant filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
On perusal of record we find that O.P No. 1-3 appeared in this record and filed W/V on 18/02/2022. Thereafter, since 05/08/2022 O.Ps are not taking any steps in this record. They did not file any questionnaire even they were absent on the date of hearing argument. They did not file any BNA before this Commission.
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid documents. We have also carefully gone through the affidavit – in – chief filed by the Complainant.
It is the main allegation of the Complainant that he did not applied for any ATM card and no ATM card was issued in his favour but through the ATM card transaction has made in his account. By using the said ATM card Rs. 1,23,500/- have withdrawn on different dates. He further stated that he never used any ATM card. He further stated that he never possessed any ATM card of O.P No. 1 / Bank.
O.P No. 1-3 in their W/V stated that Complainant opened the aforesaid account through Digital Platform i.e. YONO app and as per the aforesaid system ATM card were dispatched in the given address of the Complainant.
We have carefully gone through the statement of account filed by the Complainant.
On perusal of the said statement we find that by using the ATM card cash of Rs. 1,000/- was withdrawn at ATM cash 5542 of SBI on 22/03/2019. Cash of Rs. 1,000/- was withdrawn on 26/06/2019 at ATM cash 7676 of SBI. Cash of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn on 11/07/2019 at ATM cash 1970 of SBI. Cash of Rs. 1,000/- was withdrawn on 25/07/2019 at ATM cash 5138 of SBI. Cash of Rs. 1,500/- was withdrawn on 03/08/2019 at ATM cash 7496 of SBI. Cash of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn on 18/08/2019 at ATM cash 1253 of SBI. Cash of Rs. 6,000/- was withdrawn on 20/08/2019 at ATM cash 1774 of SBI. Cash of Rs. 20,000/- was withdrawn on 20/10/2019 at ATM cash 5863 of SBI. Cash of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn on 03/12/2019 at ATM cash 7069 of Tita SBI. Cash of Rs. 13,000/- was withdrawn on 14/06/2020 at ATM cash 2690 Anand of SBI. Cash of Rs. 20,000/- was withdrawn on 23/06/2020 at ATM cash 4563 Kanki of SBI. Cash of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn on 24/06/2020 at ATM cash 8971 of SBI A. Cash of Rs. 20,000/- was withdrawn on 20/10/2020 by WDL TFR vide UPI / DR / 029435100889 / 4898820162092 at 16769 Talpukur.
By the aforesaid way cash of Rs. 1,23,500/- have withdrawn by using ATM card.
Curious enough that by using the said ATM card cash of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited on 29/03/2019. Cash of Rs. 13,500/- was also deposited by the said ATM card.
From the aforesaid transaction, it appear before us that by using the said ATM card aforesaid transactions have made.
It is the allegation of the Complainant that it is not he who used the said ATM card for the aforesaid transaction. This question cannot be solved without verification of CCTV footage relating to the person who made the said transaction.
Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./
: : 4 : :
C.C. No. 208/2021
As per O.P No. 1-3 ATM card was dispatched in the registered address of the Complainant. In this situation, if the ATM card reached at the address of the Complainant then it is possible for the Complainant or his family members to receive the same. No document has brought to this Commission actually who received the said ATM card.
After received of the ATM card creation of PIN is required and that cannot be done without the help of registered phone number of Complainant. The alleged unauthorized person also got the control of registered mobile phone of Complainant but Complainant did not raise any allegation that any unauthorized person took the control of his mobile phone. Moreover, message of every transaction used to go to the registered mobile number. But curious enough that Complainant is totally silent on this point.
Now the entire dispute moves thorough a point who is the alleged person by whom aforesaid transactions have made. It can only be solved if we get the CCTV footage of the person by whom aforesaid transactions have made. But Complainant did not take any attempt for production of CCTV footage before this Commission.
Except CCTV footage it is not possible for this Commission to find out the person who made the aforesaid transactions.
Only Bank i.e. O.P No. 1 can solve the same by verifying the CCTV footage.
Complainant raised complaint before the O.P No. 1 but O.P No. 1 did not take any such initiative for verification of CCTV footage.
In the reply dated 23/04/2021 O.P No. 1 stated that CCTV footage are required. But till date they did not take any such initiative. Even they did not take any steps to find out the person who actually made the aforesaid transactions.
As the Complainant raised fraudulent transactions in his account it was the duty of the O.Ps specially O.P No. 1 to find out the actual person who made the aforesaid transactions. They in their W/V stated that Complainant himself made the said transactions but curious enough that they did not take any attempt to unearth the actual truth whether aforesaid transactions have made by the Complainant or not.
As per guideline of the Reserve Bank of India customer cannot suffer for any fraudulent transaction in his account.
O.Ps cannot deny their liabilities. The in-action on the part of the O.Ps and specially O.P No. 1 is not the beyond of doubt. It was his duty to solve the problem by verifying CCTV footage but he did not do so.
O.P No. 2 and 3 being the superior of O.P No. 1 also did not take proper steps to sort out the problem and did not take effective steps for the protection of Complainant. Their such type of role is not the beyond of doubt.
Even the O.P No. 1-3 did not produce the relevant papers in respect of issued of ATM card and service of ATM card by post. If they produced those documents then we could consider the fact that actually who received the ATM card.
Contd. To Page No. 5 . . . ./
: : 5 : :
C.C. No. 208/2021
The aforesaid act of O.P No. 1-3 are nothing but deficiency in service and necessary order should be passed against them.
On careful perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.P No. 1-3 are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to relief as per his prayer.
In the result present complaint succeeds.
Hence ,
It is,
ordered,
That the present case vide no. C.C./208/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P No. 1-3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid by O.P No. 1-3 in favour of the Complainant.
O.P No. 1-3 jointly or severally are directed to verify the CCTV footage in respect of the aforesaid disputed transactions within 02 (two) months from this date and find out the person who actually made the aforesaid transactions and if it is found that the said person is not the Complainant then pay Rs. 1,23,500/- (one lakh twenty three thousand five hundred) within the next 01 (one) month in favour of the Complainant and thereafter they shall have right to recover the aforesaid amount from that person i.e the person who actually made the aforesaid transaction under the law of the land failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.P No. 1-3 jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) as compensation in favour of the Complainant within 45 days from this date failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
