Tripura

West Tripura

CC/85/2017

Dr. Manas Kumar Bhattacharjee. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

13 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  85   of   2017

     Manas Kumar Bhattacharjee,
S/O- Lt. Dr. Abani Kumar Bhattacharjee,
Bhati Abhoynagar, P.O. Agartala,
West Tripura.            ...….…...Complainant.

         VERSUS
          
    The Branch Manager,
The State Bank of India,
RMS Chowmuhani Branch, 
Ramnagar Road No.2,
Agartala, Tripura West.        ...........Opposite Party.
 

 __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

For the Complainant        : In person.                       
                      
For the Opposite Party        : Tulsidas Debbarma, 
                      Representative of SBI.
                      

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   13.09.2017.

J U D G M E N T    
        This case arises on the petition filed by Dr. Manas Kumar Bhattacharjee U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner case in short is that against his account number in the SBI one ATM Card was supplied. Thereafter, he applied for Platinum Card. Accordingly, Platinum card and another Debit card was supplied without his request. Thereafter, in the month of June, 2017 he was ill and wanted to collect money from the ATM and found that money was not there in his account. He was surprised and found that the ATM Card not working. From his bank account somebody else had withdrawn money. One unknown person on mobile asked him to meet the Manager, SBI to activate the ATM Card. He saw that some money has been deducted from his account and ultimately found Rs.70,000/- was withdrawn from his account. He applied for G.D. Entry. As proper security of the ATM card was not ensured by S.B.I he suffered the loss. He therefore, claimed compensation for refund of the lost money along with interest.   

2.        O.P., State Bank Of India appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that bank never sent any PIN to home Address. From December, 2016.
Bank stopped sending PIN to Branch. Card Holder has to generate PIN by using ATM or through SMS by registered Mobile phone. The card was activated and therefore transaction was successful. One Time Password which is given did not tally with the actual PIN. State Bank sent ATM card being accompanied, with user guideline which clearly mentions all important information, caution given as such “Never share your card number CVV/CVD/CVC, PIN OTP expiry date to unknown person if the person claims to be a Bank employee”. The branch could block the ATM card or he himself could block it. Petitioner was negligent and he disclosed the PIN and ATM Card number O.T.P to unknown person therefore he himself is to blame for loss if he suffered. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:
        (I) Whether SBI has any deficiency of service for the loss of petitioner for the amount of Rs.70,0000/- from his account?
        (II) Whether the O.P. are liable and under obligation to compensate the petitioner?

4.        Petitioner produced the FIR to the Police, letter written to the Branch Manager, SBI, statement of accounts, notification of SBI also appeared and given evidence.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on account, customer transaction, issue of ATM cards, copy of G.D entry, copy of letter, e-circular, debit card user guidance, RBI notification on customer protection limiting liability of customer, debit card user guideline. Also the representative of the State Bank appeared and given evidence. 

6.        After going through all the evidence and documents on record we shall now determine the above points.
            
            Findings and decision:
7.        We have gone through the notification given by RBI on July 06, 2017. There in clause- 7 it is written that Customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorized transaction in the following cases- in cases where due to negligence of the customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorized transaction shall be brone by the bank. In this case there was no unauthorized transaction after the petitioner reported the Bank as all the ATM cards were blocked by the bank authority. Petitioner is to bear the loss of unauthorized transaction as he did not report it earlier, prior to transaction.

8.        Manas Kumar Bhattacharjee in his evidence stated that the debit card was given to him without his demand and it was not activated by him. Debit Card PIN was not generated. He never wanted to get any debit card. Money was withdrawn against his debit card which was not activated by him. 

9.        O.P. representative of State Bank stated that from 25.10.2016 Bank introduced green pin generation. Customer himself could generate the PIN. OTP sent to the mobile of customer at the time generating pin..

10.        Complainant informed the OTP PIN to unknown person and also disclosed the PIN. As such by the fault of the petitioner transaction was made by the unknown person. In such a case  cash holder card holder is to bear the loss as per RBI guideline. From the electronic information as collected by the O.P, Bank statement it is found that on 22.06.17 on 23.06.17 the amount as transferred to specific account in Mumbai. That account might be checked to find out the theft of the amount from the account of the petitioner by hacking. This kind of cheating through internet is going on by the cheaters. The customer should remain aware about this. Police should give proper help to the petitioner for recovery of the lost amount by unknown person at Mumbai. Police may be requested on this point to recover the amount from the account holder of Mumbai. We do not find out any deficiency of service by the SBI in this case. Petitioner therefore, is not entitled to get any compensation. He is to approach before the police authority to enquire investigate for recovery of the amount. Both the points are decided accordingly. 
    In view of our above findings this case is dismissed. No cost.
   

Announced.

 

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.