Date of filing:- 01/11/2018.
Date of Order:-18/03/2021.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2018
Bikash Padhan, son of Nidhi Padhan, aged about 23(twenty three), resident of Bndla, Po. Chichinda, Ps. Sohela, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Sohela Branch, Sohela, Ps. Sohela Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.K.Sahu, Advocate with associate.
For the Opposite Parties :- Sri M. Sahu, Advocate with associate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.18/03/2021. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case;-
The complainant has filed the case against the Opposite Party with an allegation of deficiencies of service on the following ground.
The case of the Complainant is that he is a Consumer of the Bank of the Opposite Party having a Savings Bank account therein vide account No. 21010110027332 and was running his said account regularly being facilitated with an ATM card by the Opposite Party’s Bank and was being informed by him through his registered mobile No.7873526656 about his transaction regularly through E-Mail and SMS having being assured by the Opposite Party’s Bank of utmost security of his money in his account in transaction by him through manual or through electronic means.
But to his ill-luck on Dt.12.10.2018, the Complainant got a SMS that an amount of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only has been debited from his account through ATM from ATM of Mahim Branch Mumbai ( Maharastra) in three phase cosequetively i.e Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only + Rs10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only + Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand)only without his knowledge while he was having the said ATM card in his pocket at sohela at such a long distance, immediately thereafter he informed about the same to the Opposite Party through his toll free number and accordingly he was informed by the Opposite Party that his complain has been received and has been registered. Also simultaneously the Complainant lodged a F.I.R in the Sohela Police Station which was registered as P.S.Case No.169 of 2018 Dt.13.10.2018 U/s 420 IPC, U/s &66(b), 66(c), 66(d) of Information Technology Amendment Act 2008.
The further case of the Complainant is that though the aforesaid matter was immediately informed to the Opposite Party and though his such information was said to have been registered by their authority and was assured of utmost security of his money in their bank for which necessary steps are being in process but practically nothing has been done by him to get back his money yet, which in his view is an act of deficiencies of service on his part as being the custodian of his money and failure of their security system and inadequate service even after his repeated request and written notice and personally running after them. For such acts of the Opposite Party the Complainant has sustained mental, financial and physical pain thus has filed the case with a claim of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only and in support of his case has relied on the following documents,
- Xerox copy of the Savings pass book.
- Xerox copy of te message of withdrawn of the amount.
- Response message of the Opposite Party to the Complaint of the Complainant regarding the fraudulent withdrawal Dt.15/10/2018.
- Xerox copy of the e-mail send of R.B.I., Bhubaneswar.
- Xerox copy of the F.I.R.
Perused the Complaint, it’s supporting documents and on hearing the Advocate for him it seemed to be genuine case hence admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party for his appearance and filing of his version and accordingly the Opposite Party appeared before the Forum through his Advocte and has filed his version.
The rival contention of the Opposite Party in his version is a completely denial one, it has completely denied the case of the Complainant having admitted in it’s version that the Complainant is a customer of his Bank and was issued with an ATM card but has never been assured of any security of his money in his account nor have ever been assured of any security in transacting through the ATM card and it is also denied in it’s version of having knowledge with regard to the SMS of the Complainant of the withdrawal of the said amount of money at the Mahim Branch, Mumbai and that if it was with the Complainant or with somebody else is also not known to him, and further has averted in his version that he has advised the Complainant to report the matter of the withdrawal of his money at Mahim Branch, Mumbai to the cyber cell of their Department and to the Police of the Sohela Police Station and as such has performed his part of duty and has not committed any sort of deficiencies of service towards the Complainant thus is not liable for any action as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and as such the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
Perused the Complaint petition, the accompanied documents and the version of the Opposite Party and on patience hearing of the respective counsels for the respective parties it is observed that the Complainant is a consumer having the Account with the Opposite Party's bank with Saving Bank Account Number -21010110027332 associated with ATM facility also it has been observed out of the immediate action of the Complainant in raising complain before the Opposite Party after getting the SMS message in his registered mobile about the said illegal withdrawal of his money at the mentioned place of occurance through his SMS in the toll free number of the Opposite Party which has also been registered by the Opposite Party and also it has been observed from the F.I.R lodged by the Complainant in person before the Police Station on Dt.13.10.2018 out of which it can be safely deducted that the occurance has taken place in an illegal manner as has been complained by the Complainant and also it is clearly established from the materials available before us in the record that the Complainant has acted upon the advice of the Opposite Party in reporting before the cyber cell, and before the Police as has been averted by the Opposite Party.
In furtherance to our observation the very version of the Opposite Party is beyond the Banking Law and policy of the Banking organization in overlooking the security measures in securing the money of it’s customer associated with it’s monetary transaction and all other business, it has been observed also that the Opposite Party has tried to shift it’s prime duty stating therein in it’s version that it has advised the Complainant to report before it’s cyber cell and before the Police and as such has done it’s part of duty as the said process of investigation is none of it’s look out, which of such averments of the Opposite Party itself goes against the principle of Banking Law beside being a measure deviation of the Principle laid down by the Damodaran Committee report vide Dated 3rd August 2011 guiding the Activities and responsibility of the Banking institution in dealing with Public Money and dealing with their customer, but the Opposite Party has not at all took care of it’s responsibility, it could have drawn the attention of the investigating agencies and could have tried to excavate the truth through the C.C.T.V.camera which ought to have been installed in the concerned ATM, or through any independent investigating agency to excavate the truth to establish the faith of the public on their establishment and it could have taken follow up action, and in the meantime should have refunded the money of the Complainant pending disposal of the investigation of the cyber cell, but it did not do anything except shifting the matter on the shoulder of the Complainant himself and for such acts of the Opposite Party at present towards the Complainant has made us compel to come to a conclusion that the Opposite Party is very much deficient and callous in it’s duty as such is very much liable for the action under the prescribed provision of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, thus our conscious and consensus view against the Opposite Party is expressed in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly with regard to the claim of the Complainant for compensation as we have already analyzed the case in detail in our foregoing paragraph and have opined against the Opposite Party, and considering the loss sustained by the Complainant financially, mentally, and physically, we are of the view that he is entitled for compensation as has been sought for by him for which the Opposite Party is liable to pay, thus our Order follows.
O R D E R.
Hence the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only to the Complainant towards the money withdrawn from his said Account No-21010110027332 without his knowledge from the safe custody of the Opposite Party with an interest @ 6% (six percent) per annum from the date of filing of this case till the date of order and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards his sufferings, mentally financially and physically and also is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only towards his litigation expenses within thirty days of receipt of the Order in default of which the total amount would accrue an interest @ 9% (nine percent) per annum till the actual realization of the total amount.
Accordingly the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party and the same being pronounced in the open Forum is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt.18/03/2021.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W).
Uploaded by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant
