West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/41/2016

Sanjoy Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, U.B.I. - Opp.Party(s)

Souvik Simai

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay

  

Complaint Case No.41/2016

                                                        

Sanjoy Pradhan, S/o-Late Barendra Nath Pradhan,

Vill-Bagda, P.O. &  P.S.-Mohanpur,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

1) The Branch Manager, Mohanpur, United Bank of India,

P.O. &  P.S.-Mohanpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur,

2) The DGM & Chief Regional  Manager, UBI, Paschim Medinipur,

Midnapur Town at Burdge Town….…Opposite. Parties.

 

 For the Complainant: Mr. Partha Kumar Pati, Advocate.

 For the O.P.              : Mr. Santanu Das, Advocate.     

 

Decided on: -06/09/2016

                               

ORDER

   Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member - The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant is the saving account holder of the O.P.-United Bank of India, Mohanpur branch having the facility of ATM  Card. The complainant states and contends that on  18/10/2014  in his account the credit balance was Rs.40,600/-. On that very dates the complainant  had withdrawn Rs.25,000/-  from his account through his card and again on 19/10/2014 the  complainant with drawn Rs.1,000/- through  his ATM Card. The complainant withdrawn Rs.26,000/- in  total from his

Contd……………..P/2

 

( 2 )

account. After deducting the with drawal money Rs.14,600/- remained in the account of the complainant as stated by him.  On 20/10/2014 the complainant found that only Rs.28/- was lying in his account. The complainant states that on 20/10/2014 and 25/10/2014 the complainant informed the matter about the missing amount of Rs.14,572/- to the O.P. No.1 by writing. The O.P. No.1  assured the complainant that he will get back the missing amount very soon as it is  a technical fault. The complainant contends that inspite of several reminders the O.P.  did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant states that he also informed the matter in writing to the O.P. No.2. But O.P. No.2  also did not tried to solve the matter as alleged by the complainant. The complainant send a letter to the  O.P. No.2. But the Ops. remained silent. Having no other way the complaint has came before the Ld.  Forum for relief. The  complainant states that due to deficiency of service the complainant received serious mental pain and agony. Therefore the complainant prays before the Hon’ble Forum with a direction to the O.Ps.  to pay Rs.14,572/- with interest and also  prays for direction to the O.Ps.  to pay in adequate service of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards mental pain and agony.  

The Ops. contested the case by filing a written objection. In their objection the Ops.  state that the petition of complainant is not maintainable  in its present form and  the complainant has no cause of action to file the instant complainant case and it is also barred by the principles of  estoppels, waiver and acquisamce. The Ops.  also state that the petition of complainant is bad for  non-joinder of  necessary party so this complaint case cannot be proceed. The Ops. contend that the Manager of the Bank and CRM of Paschim Medinipur are the employee of the Bank and they cannot do any act in their personal capacity and they cannot  do anything without the direction of the higher authority of the Bank. Ops. disputed that the petition of complaint is not correct and some of the statements are fictitious, frivolous, fabricated baseless and  imaginary and such complaint of the complainant liable to be dismissed with cost. The statements in-para 1,2 and 3 are not denied. But para 4, 5 and 6 of the petition of complaint  also are not admitted. The statement made in-para 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the complainant petition also are not admitted by the Ops.  The O.P. No.1 and 2 further state that the said that it is fact that Sanjay Pradhan, the complainant  is the customer of United Bank of India  and the complainant having S/B A/c no.0693010104607with ATM facility. Ops. admitted that fact that on 18/10/2014  his credit balance of Rs.40,600/-. But the complainant used to

Contd……………….P/3

 

( 3 )

collect/paid money on various dates through his aforesaid ATM Card. It will be evident from the chart issued by the ADC department of United Bank of India  as well as the statement of account of S/B A/c no.0693010104607. The Ops. state it may found from the statement of account the ATM Card of complainant  has been used several times to pay money through different payment site on 18/10/2014. The  ATM Card was kept  with the custody of  complainant and the confidential PIN No. was only known to the complainant. Ops. contented that the Ops. suggested the  complainant to block the ATM card  and requested the complainant to change the ATM Pin no. but the complainant did not accept the proposal of the Bank officials. The Ops. further states that most of the transactions were done by internet on 18/10/2014 night to early morning on 19/10/2014. So the Ops. are no way responsible or liable for any  such transaction. Father more if any banking transaction through ATM or the computer is done the same is informed to the customer  by sending message to the customer mobile.  In this case also when all the transaction were made through ATM, pin no. the message sent to the customers mobile.  The Ops. state that the complainant did not take any step to block the ATM Card  or change the pin and the complainant  did not take any step by filing any complain to the local police concern. Ops. further state that after getting the complain from the complainant, the Branch Manager informed the matter to the customer care cell of United Bank of India, Head Office at Kolkata. It is found that all transactions were made by the complainant’s ATM pin. So O.P.-Bank has no responsibility regarding any transaction made by the complainant by using his ATM Card or ATM pin. So it is cannot be said any other person has access to the ATM Card of the complainant.  The Ops. state that the complainant petition is not tenable and is liable to be rejected and prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.     

Points for decision

1. Whether the case is maintainable or not ?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service ?
3. Is the complainant entitled  to the reliefs as prayed for ? 

Decision with reason

Issues nos. 1 to 3.

                 All the issues are taken up together for discussion on as those are interlinked to each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

Contd……………….P/4

 

( 4 )

 Regarding the allegation of the complainant Ld. Lawyer argued that there is deficiency of service. On the part of the O.P. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant  argued that the complainant informed about the missing amount of Rs.14,572/- to the Ops. on 20/10/2014 and 25/10/2014. But the Ops. assured the complainant that they will see the matter as it is a technical fault the complainant will get back the missing amount of Rs.14,572/-. Inspite of several reminders the where about of money could not trace out. Ld. Lawyer argued that the complainant sent a lawyer’s letter dated 14/12/2015. But the Ops. remain silent. The allegation of the complainant that it is the utmost duty and responsibility of the banking authority to provide service and safety and to secure the money kept in the account of the complainant. But the Ops. performance was in adequate as alleged by the complainant. So there is deficiency on the part of the Ops. and the complainant prays before the Forum written in his petition of complaint.

The Ld. Advocate for the Ops. argued that there is no deficiency of service against the Ops. and the case is not maintainable and the complainant case has no cause of action and the Ops. prays for dismissal of the suit with cost.

Ld. Advocate for the Ops. argued that the ATM Card or the Pin no. was remain in self custody of the complainant and  nobody other than the complainant with drawn the money from the account. The Ld. Advocate argued that at the time of cross-examination the complainant admitted that the ATM Card was always in the custody of the complainant and the Pin no.  is not known to other and the complainant admitted that the O.P.-Bank requested the complainant to lock the ATM Card and to change the pin no.  Complainant admitted that complainant did not take any step for blocking the ATM Card and changing the Pin no.  Ld. Lawyer for the Ops. submitted one decisions of  NCDRC in the instant  case it is not disputed that ATM Card or Pin remained in the self custody of the complainant. It is ensure that without the ATM Card  and knowledge of the Pin no. it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an  authorized person from an ATM. The complainant was aware of the special four digit Pin no.  which is essential to operate the ATM. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.-Bank.

In view of the above facts and circumstances we carefully considered the case of both the parties and documentary evidence. It is not clear that the ATM Card of the complainant had been stolen or the Pin no. had become known to persons other than ATM holder.

Contd……………….P/5

 

( 5  )  

The complaint did not take any possible steps for changing the ATM Card and Pin no.  The ATM Card or Pin remained in the self custody of the complainant. Complainant has also failed to produce any probability of fraudulent withdrawn occurred either because the ATM Card or Pin no. fell in wrong hand.

In view of this fact we have no option but to accept the plea of the Ops. Therefore the prayer made by the complainant cannot be granted in his favour.     

                               Hence, it is

                                        Ordered

                                         that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

                                       Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.                   

                  Dictated and Corrected by me

                             Sd/- D. Sengupta.          Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.        Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                                    Member                               Member                             President

                                                                                                                       District Forum

                                                                                                                    Paschim Medinipur