Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The financial dispute between the Complainant and the OP is summarized in the form of written complaint and written version as under. The basic fact of the complaint case is that the Complainant Sri Bikash Chandra Roy has a salary account bearing No.31810741186 with the OP State Bank of India, Tufanganj Branch and an ATM card bearing No.5596010043571932. On 11.08.19 the Complainant found that there were two ATM withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- from his account and was also a further transfer of Rs.10,000/- from the account of the Complainant to one Miss Vinita Murmu account No.20157498042. Although the disputed transactions were through ATM card of the Complainant but the Complainant did not use the ATM card at all on 11.08.19 nor did he transfer any amount. Subsequently, on 13.08.19 the Complainant sent one complaint through his Mobile against which the OP sent three numbers being number (1) 6928/11532986/000, ticket No. 5755135024 (2) 6926/11521918/000, ticket No.57555134932 and (3) 6930/11550517/000, ticket No.5755/35176 all dated 13.08.19 but the OP sent one SMS on 28.08.19 and also sent that complaint No.575135176 closed after resolution. But till today the OP did not credit in disputed money. Subsequently, the OP further debited Rs.10,000/- from the account of the Complainant on 30.08.19 without any intimation against which the Complainant raised grievance but the OP did not give any reply. The Complainant therefore filed an application under RTI Act to the OP on 02.05.2022 against which the OP informed that debit transaction of Rs.10,000/- on 30.08.19 was on account of ATM withdrawal dated 11.08.19 from ATM ID No.IFBN000058015 where cash was dispensed but the account was not debited on that day. Therefore it is crystal clear that OP done gross negligence with the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant lodged a complaint to the Consumer Affair and Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar and the OP agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant as compensation but the matter was not settled. So, the Complainant suffered mental pain and agony and financial loss due to negligence of the OP which is deficiency in service. The cause of action arose on 11.08.19 and on subsequent dates. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award of Rs.50,000/- against the OP, Rs. 1 Lakh towards deficiency in service and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP contested the case by filing written version wherein they denied each and every allegation. The positive defence case in brief is that the statement made in Para-2 which admitted by the OP. The Complainant informed the matter through his Mobile on 13.08.19. After receiving the said complaint the OP closed after resolution. The date of occurrence was 11.08.19 but after lapse of two years nine months RTI was filed and after lapse of limitation the present complaint was failed. The Complainant suppressed the matter ATM transaction dated 11.08.19 and the said transaction was successful transaction since the response code was zero. The said amount of Rs.10,000/- was dispensed and received by the Complainant but the said amount was not debited from his S/B bank account which was subsequently debited on 30.08.19 from his S/B account. The Complainant received three SMS regarding withdrawal of money on 11.08.19 and as such he could have forwarded the said SMS to the bank to block his card but he did not block the ATM card immediately. It means that the Complainant used the ATM card for withdrawing money from his account and unnecessarily is harassing the OP. As per bank circular if there was fraudulent transaction then the customer must lodge GDE or FIR within seven days from the date of occurrence and alongwith this GDE or FIR customer must submit one page format for complaint to his branch. After receiving the said complaint the bank must inform the matter to the Complaint Management Cell of Bank. But in this case the Complainant did not comply with said provision. In a fraudulent transaction case the liability of the bank in any fraudulent transaction is only for seven days but this transaction was not fraudulent and transaction was successful as per JP Log. As per bank circular after lapse of 90 days CC TV footage are not recovered. The OP claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The respective pleadings of the parties and the points involved in the dispute persuaded this Commission to ascertain the following points for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for determination
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the decree as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
The OP challenged the case on different grounds through their written version, but these points were not pressed during the argument by the Ld. Defence Counsel. However after perusing the pleadings of the parties and having assessed the evidence on record the Commission comes to the finding that the case is legally maintainable and not barred by any provisions of law.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Points No.2 & 3.
These points relate to ascertainment of entitlement of relief claimed by the Complainant.
The main dispute relate to claim of the Complainant that despite not using the ATM card by the Complainant, he found that Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn by using his ATM card on 11.08.19. He further found that Rs.10,000/- was transferred to the account of one Vinita Murmu on the same day to his utter surprise despite not using the ATM card.
As a first and foremost step to lodge his grievance the Complainant sent a complaint through Mobile, which was duly registered by the OP bank bearing No.6926, 6928 and 6930 on 13.08.19 with three ticket number.
Annexure-2 supports the said contention of the Complainant.
It is further found from the said annexure that the said complaint is stated to have been attended to and closed after resolution on 20.08.19.
After close scrutiny of the case record it is found that the OP has not assigned any reason as to why the complaint was closed after resolution.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that despite the said alleged fraudulent transaction the Complainant did not block the ATM card. He further questioned as to why did he not lodge any FIR or complaint to the Police. It is the RBI guidelines that complaint has to be lodged in this case within seven days in specific format of one page alongwith the copy of the FIR or GDE.
Assuming but not admitting that for a fraudulent transaction complaint has to be lodged in one page format alongwith GDE or FIR copy, but after perusing the written version it transpires that the OP categorically stated in Para-17 inter alia that in any fraudulent transaction case the liability of the bank is only for seven days but this transaction was not a fraudulent transaction and it was a successful transaction as per the JP Log.
Therefore if the version of the OP is taken up for consideration, then the Complainant need not fulfill the criteria as claimed by the OP, because it is the specific defence case that the said transaction was not a fraudulent transaction.
Let us further consider the important document and documentary evidence like JP Log filed by the OP. The said JP Log discloses that Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn and further Rs.10,000/- was transferred from the card No. 5596010043571932 on 08.11.19.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that as per the JP Log it is a successful transaction. But Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that there is no remark that it is a successful transaction.
Be that as it may, but from the JP Log it is found that there is no log comment unlike other JP Log “cash delivered”.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further argued that the OP bank agreed to refund Rs.20,000/- on humanitarian ground in course of conciliation before the Consumer Affair and Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar.
It is found from the Annexure-F being the extract of proceedings before the Consumer Affair and Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar that the OP assured that they will refund Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that no weightage should be given upon the said document because it is not a commitment. So many things are spoken and pleas are taken in course of hearing.
The argument is not acceptable in as much as the circumstantial evidence also has got sufficient value. The said commitment before the CA and FBP Department can reasonably be considered as corroborating evidence for the Complainant.
As regard delay in lodging the complaint Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that the OP challenged the complaint on the ground of delay of 90 days. But the bank caused delay of so many days in debiting the transaction of the Complainant.
The argument has reasonable force in as much as Annexure-4 is the reply of information sought under the RTI Act dated 20.05.2022. Reply to clause-C discloses that debit transaction of Rs.10,000/- on 30.08.19 was for ATM withdrawal dated 11.08.19, where cash was dispensed but the account was not debited.
It disclose two aspects First, the bank caused delay of about 20 days to regularize the transaction. So a customer may cause delay for sufficient reasons. Secondly, now a day’s all transactions in bank are auto generated by machine. If an amount of debit transaction is not entered on the same day it means the machine has some fault. There is nothing unlikely in it, because a machine may fail.
Similarly entry in the JP Log is not a gospel truth. The plea of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the card of the Complainant was manipulated is reasonable and bonafide.
The aforesaid discussion makes it crystal clear that there was contributory negligence on the part of the OP. In such a situation, justice will prevail if the OP is fastened with a liability to the extent of 50% of the claim demanded by the Complainant.
The given facts and circumstances also drive the Commission to allow some money for litigation cost to the Complainant.
Points No.2 & 3 are accordingly answered in affirmative.
Consequently, the complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No.CC/29/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost Rs.5,000/-.
The Complainant Sri Bikash Chandra Roy do get an award for Rs.25,000/- towards 50% of his claim, Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost and Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service.
The OP, Branch Manager SBI, Tufanganj Branch is directed to pay Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the Final Order failing which the award shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of passing the Final Order till the date of its realization.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.