CC Filed on 16.04.2010
Disposed on 11.05.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 11th day of May 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 34/2010
Between:
Sri. Dadapeer, S/o. late Ibrahim Sab, Aged about 52 years, Resident of Kandwarpet, ChickballapurTown. (By Advocate Sri. Ziaulla & others ) | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chickballapur Branch, B.B. Road, Chickballapur. (By Advocate Sri. B.S. Ravi Prakash) 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Chickballapur Branch, Chickballapur. (By Advocate Sri. V. Sreedhara Murthy) | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to rectify the wrong debit entry appearing in complainant’s Savings Bank Account bearing No. 30152153522 with OP No.1, for Rs.38,000/- dated 31.01.2010 and to pay compensation, costs, etc.,
2. For the sake of brevity and better understanding of the dispute between parties, the material facts required for the disposal of controversy involved in this case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant is having S.B. Account with OP.1 and he has been issued an ATM card bearing No. 6220180790800008795 for transacting in the said S.B. Account. According to complainant on 31.01.2010 he sent his son D. Shahid Pasha for withdrawal of Rs.2,000/- through ATM attached to OP.2 and accordingly his son D. Shahid Pasha went to ATM No.1 of OP.2 and withdrew Rs.2,000/- at 13.36 hours and he also noticed that available balance in the S.B. account was Rs.42,910/-. Further that on the next day when the balance in the S.B. Account was checked it was found that the balance available only was Rs.4,910/- and that there was a debit entry for Rs.38,000/- dated 31.01.2010. According to complainant Rs.38,000/- was not drawn by him or his son and this is a wrongful debit entry and that immediately the complainant gave written complaint to OP.1 and subsequently he received reply stating that the transaction of Rs.38,000/- was successful as per the report of OP.1. It appears a copy of J.P. Log was supplied to OP.1-Bank by OP.2-Bank and in turn OP.1-Bank furnished the copy of the said J.P. Log. This document shows that Rs.38,000/- was withdrawn on 31.01.2010 at 13.37 hours by using the ATM card of complainant and that the said transaction had taken place in ATM No.2 of OP.2.
3. OP No.1 and 2 have contended that by using the ATM card of complainant and the secret PIN provided to him Rs.2,000/- was drawn on 31.01.2010 at 13.36 hours through ATM No.1 attached to OP.2 and with the help of same ATM card Rs.38,000/- was drawn on the same day at 13.37 hours from ATM No.2 attached to OP.2. Further it is contended that the ATM services could be utilized only with the aid of the ATM card provided to a customer and the PIN exclusively known to him. Further that no withdrawal is possible by the ATM without the ATM card and the concerned PIN provided to that cardholder. Therefore it is contended that the disputed transaction has been made only with the ATM card of complainant and the PIN provided to him and as such the complainant cannot have any claim against the Banks. It is also contended that admittedly the complainant had entrusted the card and he divulged the PIN to his son against the instructions contained in the User Manual of ATM card. OP.2 has contended that the journal print log related to the disputed debit entry of Rs.38,000/- dated 31.01.2010, shows that the transaction was successful. Therefore the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant as well as his son D. Shahid Pasha have filed the affidavits supporting their case and both parties have also filed documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for parties.
5. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the OP No.1 and 2 have proved that the
disputed debit entry of Rs.38,000/- dated 31.01.2010
is genuine entry?
Point No.2: If point No.1 is held in negative to which reliefs
the complainant is entitled to?
Point No.3: To what order?
6. After considering the records and the rival contentions our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: The Bank issues ATM card to facilitate the customer to withdraw amount from his account, with certain terms and conditions. While issuing ATM card the Bank also furnishes the PIN (Personal Identification Number) in a sealed cover, so that no other person could come to know the PIN given to a customer. If an unauthorized person gains the ATM card as well as the PIN of a particular customer such unauthorized person can access the ATM services and can withdraw the amount without the knowledge of the card holder. Therefore the usual term prescribed by the Bank while issuing the card is that the Bank bears no liability for the unauthorized use of the card and the PIN resulting in illegal withdrawal of amount and in such cases, it is the entire responsibility of the cardholder for the loss occasioned. Therefore there is a duty on the cardholder not to part with the ATM card and the PIN to any outsider to avoid any fraudulent withdrawal without his knowledge.
Usually Video Surveillance System (VSS) is provided to every ATM to detect the malicious activities carried out if any in ATM. In the present case, it is not denied that much earlier to the date of disputed transaction VSS was installed in the ATM cabin of OP.
The documents produced reveal that the admitted transaction had taken place in ATM No.1 and the disputed transaction had taken place in ATM No.2 attached to OP.1-Bank. Further it can be seen that Rs.2,000/- was withdrawn on 31.01.2010 at 13.36 hours from ATM No.1 and whereas Rs.38,000/- was shown to have been withdrawn from ATM No.2 on the same day at 13.37 hours.
The close reading of the facts of the complainant’s case as made out from the records, shows that the complainant’s son himself had gone to withdraw the amount and infact he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.2,000/- on 31.01.2010 from ATM No.1 and that he had never operated ATM No.2 on the above said date and inspite of it there was debit entry of Rs.38,000/-. Therefore according to the complainant this debit entry was either fraudulent entry or wrong entry.
From the J.P. Log print produced by OP.2 the disputed transaction is shown as successful transaction. Therefore it can be said that the amount representing the disputed debit entry was taken away from the counter of ATM No.2 by someone. However the crosschecking of the account generated by ATM does not help to ascertain whether the disputed transaction was the result of some fraudulent act of someone. Such fraudulent act could have been done by complainant himself or some other representative of complainant if he handed over his ATM card disclosing the PIN to such person. Even it is possible that by meddling with the ATM system, the fraudulent act can take place by an outsider other than the complainant or his representative. The complainant himself can draw the amount from ATM No.2 and may make false complaint. In that event the complainant will very well know the fraud to be committed. If he had handed over his ATM card to his representative for withdrawal of the amount such person may withdraw the amount from ATM No.1 as well as ATM No.2 and may not disclose the withdrawal of amount from ATM No.2 to complainant. In that event the complainant will not know the fraudulent act and the withdrawal of amount shown in the disputed debit entry. In these circumstances the Bank cannot be held liable. The commission of such fraud, either by complainant or by his representative can be easily detected by observing the video footage available in the ATM cabin. If the Bank has no other direct evidence to prove such fraudulent acts it becomes necessary for the Bank to go through the video footage immediately after receiving the complaint to verify whether the fraud was committed by complainant or by his representative. If it becomes possible for a third person to meddle with the ATM working system and thereby if he could withdraw the amount from an ATM counter simultaneously or soonafter withdrawal of the amount representing genuine transaction, then the ATM card holder does not come to know such fraudulent transaction and in that event the cardholder is not responsible for the wrongful withdrawal. If any third person had meddled with the ATM system in any way, that can also be verified only by seeing the video footage. Therefore if some one has committed fraud in withdrawing the amount representing the disputed debit entry from ATM No.2, that can be traced only by verifying the video footage.
If the cash is not dispensed in the ATM counter representing any debit entry, the cash must remain in the cash chest of ATM system. Such discrepancy can be identified by verifying the physical cash in the ATM and the ATM cash balance account at Branch. Any variation in the physical cash in the ATM with that of the ATM cash balance account at Branch implies that cash at ATM is not reconciled. If there is such variation and there is excess cash in the ATM than the ATM cash balance account at Branch, the fraud can also be committed by the person who meddles with physical cash in the ATM.
If video footage of the ATM counter shows that no one had entered the ATM counter at relevant time, which generated the disputed debit entry, then the only inference is that some insider of the Branch has meddled with the ATM working system and had falsified the account relating to physical cash in the ATM. If none had entered the ATM counter at the relevant time it is impossible to infer that some outsider had fraudulently withdrawn the amount from ATM counter. Therefore we think for ascertaining whether any insider had a hand in committing the fraud, verification of video footage was absolutely necessary for proper disposal of such complaint of an ATM card holder.
If any outsider meddles with the ATM system and corrupts its working system and wrongfully withdraws the amount, without the aid or connivance of complainant, such wrongful withdrawal does not relieve the liability of Bank from reimbursing the amount to ATM cardholder. The Bank is exonerated from its liability if the withdrawal of amount is due to the negligence or carelessness of complainant in properly keeping the ATM card and maintaining the secrecy of PIN. If the wrongful withdrawal of amount through ATM is not due to the fault of ATM cardholder, the Bank cannot disclaim its liability from reimbursing the said amount to ATM cardholder.
It is contended on behalf of the OP-Bank that the ATM system cannot be meddled with by any outsider and wrongful withdrawal of amount from ATM is not possible and that the amount from ATM can be withdrawn only by using the ATM card and the PIN provided to an ATM cardholder. We think such a proposition that the ATM system has a fool proof functioning and that the amount cannot be withdrawn without using ATM card and the PIN of an ATM cardholder, may not be true. It is apparent that in ATM system many times wrong entries are made in the accounts of different customers for one or other reason and in such cases by verifying and counterchecking the account generated by ATM at various levels the mistakes are rectified. If there are fraudulent withdrawals by meddling with the ATM system itself that cannot be identified by crosschecking the accounts generated by ATM. That can be verified and identified by going through the video footage alone. In the present case, the OP.2 has not taken that step even after written/oral instructions from the beginning of the case. The Learned Counsel for the OP.2 contented that when complainant has not specifically asked for production of the video footage relating to the disputed debit entry, the Bank has no duty or liability to produce such video footage or to review the said footage. We think that contention appears to be not correct. The OP.2-Bank has to establish that the withdrawal through ATM was as per the agreement between cardholder and the Bank. As already noted if some one fraudulently withdraws the amount from ATM without the negligence or connivance of complainant, the Bank is liable for such wrongful withdrawals. For that reason the Bank should voluntarily come forward to verify the video footage to ascertain the true state of affairs. We have come across an instance how easily a fraudster can meddle with the ATM system and wrongfully withdraw the amount from the account of an account holder, which is reported in Times of India dated 06.08.2010 at page 15. The said news item may be extracted to know the manner in which the fraud was being committed which is as follows:
Sticky key trick to steal from ATMs
Swindlers Often Use Nail Cutters, Screwdrivers To Withdraw Money
Kolkata: Beware if the ATM screen goes blank after you swipe your card. It could be a mischief by fraudsters to withdraw cash from your account after you leave the ATM in a huff. A bit of adhesive and a screwdriver are all that’s needed to outwit hi-tech safety gadgets.
These swindlers are part of a powerful inter-state network spread across the country. Assam Police and Kolkata Police have recently rounded up three swindlers who have mastered the tampering of ATMs. The trick applies only to ATM machines that need a customer to insert and extract the card to start operations (as opposed to ATMs where the card pops out after the transaction is complete). Many nationalized banks, including SBI and Bank of Baroda, use this system at their ATMs, most of which are unmanned.
So, what is this low-tech, highly effective modus operandi?
Fraudsters, who generally strike in pairs, enter the ATM by swiping a valid debit card at the gate, press down a key on the gate, press down a key on the keyboard and stick it with adhesive so that it does not return to its original position. This switches on the machine. They then walk out and wait for a victim to step into the trap.
When a customer enters the ATM and swipes the card, he does not realise that the machine is already on. A message flashes for him to key his PIN, which he does. But since the machine has been switched on in an improper way, the screen goes blank automatically as a security feature to stop fraudulent withdrawals.
The customer thinks it is a system fault and gives it a second try. He has no clue that the two ‘customers’ getting impatient outside are actually criminals waiting to steal his money. They start abusing him for taking too much time and force him to leave in a huff.
Exit customer, enter fraudster. They simply use a screwdriver to ‘release’ the key. The ATM restarts automatically. What it has in store is the PIN of the last customer who swiped his card. The gang simply enters the amounts and walks out with cash.
The SBI has been receiving several such complaints from its unmanned ATMs. “We were at a loss to locate the fraud because the CCTVs showed the customer swiping his card. But customers complained that they couldn’t withdraw money,” an SBI official said.
Later; banks found out that the actual transaction happened long after the customer had swiped his card and left. And, the CCTV footage always showed two or more suspicious persons enter the cubicle soon after the customer left. “What struck us is that the transaction was completed only after the group of people left the counter,” the bank official said. Banks then complained to the police.
One such complaint was lodged at Entally police station in June this year. CCTV footage came handy for investigators from the anti-bank fraud wing of Kolkata Police. One of the kingpins, Adid Khan, was caught in the act as he tried out the same stunt at an ATM in a shopping district. Police seized adhesives, screwdrivers and nail cutters from his associates - simple tools that helped them carry out a near-perfect crime. Three ATM cards, a debit card, a car ad Rs.2 lakh in cash were seized. Probe revealed the trio are part of large gang operating from Gaya in Bihar. When they confessed, police were stunned by the simplicity of the operation.
The above incident is an example how an ATM can be meddled with by an outsider. For detecting such fraud a well trained investigating staff is required. Only thorough investigation will reveal the truth. In the present case, the OP.2-Bank has not taken such step and it has closed the complaint just crosschecking the entries generated by ATM but without reviewing the relevant video footage. As already noted, the reconciliation or crosschecking of the accounts generated by ATM at different levels, is helpful to solve the complaints like - customers account debited but cash not dispensed, customers account debited twice but cash dispensed only once, customers account debited but part cash disbursed. However such method is not helpful if the complaint is in substance states that customer did not transact in the ATM but his account is reportedly debited. Such instances may certainly indicate fraudulent transactions and it may need detailed investigation. The OP.2-Bank had received number of complaints alleging the fraud in the similar way. Therefore it was the duty of the OP.2-Bank to take steps for detailed investigation by efficient investigating team to detect the truth.
The allegations made in the complaint and the records show that the alleged fraudulent transaction had taken place in ATM No.2 almost at the same time when the admitted transaction was being done in ATM No.1. Therefore one can safely assume that the cardholder’s son himself was in possession of the ATM card when he was transacting with it in ATM No.1 and therefore there was no possibility of some third person getting custody of the ATM card at the same time. We think there is no reason to disbelieve the version of complainant that his son withdrew the amount from ATM No.1 and thereafter at the same time the disputed debit entry was effected purporting to be the result of transaction in ATM No.2. We cannot disbelieve the version of complainant and his son that they never entered ATM No.2 from which disputed debit entry was generated. The verification of video footage alone could have established whether any one had actually entered ATM No.2 or not. That was not done by OP.2-Bank for the reasons best known to it. For the above reasons, we hold that the OP.2-Bank has failed to establish that the disputed debit entry was genuine entry and that the complainant or his representative had received the amount from ATM No.2. Hence Point No.1 is held in Negative.
Point No.2: It is found that debit entry of Rs.38,000/- dated 31.01.2010 is not shown to be the genuine entry. Therefore OP.2-Bank is liable to reimburse the said amount to complainant. We think interest at the rate of 9% p.a. may be allowed for the amount wrongfully debited in the S.B. account of complainant from the date of wrongful debit entry to the date of payment. Hence Point No.2 is held accordingly.
Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP.2-Bank shall pay Rs.38,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of wrongful debit entry till the date of payment, within 6 weeks from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 11th day of May 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
