Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/205/2015

Vijaykumar C Desai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Vijaya Bank - Opp.Party(s)

R C Ingalagi

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

ORDER

          The complainant has filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in Banking service for loss of A.T.M.

          2) The opponents after service of notice appeared through counsel and filed objection of O.P.No.1 and adopted by opponents No.2 and 3.

          3) The complainant filed his affidavit and certain documents are produced and so also the opponents filed their affidavits and documents are produced.

          4) We have heard the argument on both the sides.

          5) Point for our considered are that;

                   1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service by opponents in banking service?

                   2) Whether the complainant has followed the rules and regulation of R.B.I. guidelines for using A.T.M. card issued by opponent No.1 Bank?

                   3) Whether the opponents are in deficiency in service as contended by the complainant?

4) To what relief the complainant is entitled?

 

          6)      We answer the above point as under;

                   1) Negative,

                   2) Negative,

                   3) Negative,

                   4) As per order;

REASONS

          7) The allegation of the complainant are discussed in brief instead reasoning in details, because at the cost of repetition of detailed allegations of the complaint. We see that the facts are simple that, the complainant is customer of opponent No.1 and opponent No.2 and 3 are dispute cell of opponent No.1 bank. Opponent No.3 is Head office of O.P.No.1 bank. The allegations of the complainant is that he is customer of O.P.No.1 bank and is holding S.B. Account in the opponent No.1 bank and also that O.P.No.1 bank issued A.T.M card on his account and the complainant lost his A.T.M. somewhere in month of June 2014 and the complainant had filed application to stop the ATM card and according the bank had stopped ATM transaction and did not take another A.T.M. after loss of the ATM Card in month of June 2014. The further allegation of the complainant is that in month of August 2014 an amount of Rs.9,000/- was withdrawn through the complainant’s ATM card at Davanagere, the amount deposited by complainant’s tenant in his account. The withdrawal of Rs.9,000/- was intimated to complainant through his mobile and complainant made oral enquiries with the bank and also filed written complaint on 16/8/2014 and same was acknowledged on 18/8/2014. However the complainant received a computerized letter from the bank on 26/8/2014. As per bank authority and instruction the complainant filed F.I.R. with concerned Police Station and necessary application was given to the opponent bank to fallow legal steps. But opponent bank failed to take required steps and investigate matter evenafter several month and caused mental agony and caused loss in terms of monitory   and committed deficiency of service and did not take action to find out culprit with respect to ATM card nor compensated the complainant. The complainant further alleges that some of staff member of O.P.No.1 bank are involved in committing fraud along with the person who fraudulently withdrawn the amount of complainant from ATM and prayed to allow the complaint.

          8) On the other hand the opponent No.1 bank filed objection admitting some facts as true and correct and denied some facts of the complainant. The opponent No.1 contends that para No.1 is true and correct and para No.2 may be true as per the knowledge of opponent and contents of para No.3 is partly true and that the opponent issued ATM card No.4696441275000757 to complainant date 21/5/2012, ATM card No.46964412750003231 dated 19/2/2013 and card No. 4696441275002654 date 31/5/2013 which were issued to complainant and some are lost by complainant twice and present card was issued. The opponent contends that the loss of ATM card, somewhere in the month of June 2014 by complainant is false, but does not know where the card was lost by the complainant and opponent denies the same. The opponent further contends that it is false to state that the complainant has filed application to bank after loss of ATM Card, but infact it was intimated to bank on 18/8/2014 by letter dated 16/8/2014. The opponents further contends that the complainant or card holder has to follow guidelines of RBI and in case of loss the card holder has to immediately intimate the bank and police complaint has to be lodged.

          9) The opponent further contends that the complainant lodged complaint with bank on 18/8/2014 even the complainant lost the card somewhere in the month of June 2014. The complainant has produced copy of complaint filed before Police, which has not been registered and according to which the complainant has lost the card somewhere in the month of Feb 2014 itself, as such the complainant is not at all      sure when and where he lost the card.

          10) The opponents further contends that the complainant has given card for withdrawal of amount to other person and this opponent observed the same in CCTV footage of the ATM of the Bank, that the amount through the said card was withdrawn by the servant of the complainant and the complainant was having the habit of handing over the card to somebody to withdraw the amount and same is against R.B.I. guidelines and rules and card holder should use the card in whose name the card is issued. The opponents contends that para 5 is false and baseless as the complainant has not submitted the application about loss of his card along with F.I.R. which is mandatory. The opponents further submits that the amount is withdraw on 11/8/2014 much earlier than giving of complaint by the complainant on 18/8/2014.

          11) The opponents further contends that the complainant had withdrawn the amount in the month of July 2014, even admitted that the card is lost in the month June 2014 or Feb. 2014, than the withdrawal of the amount in the month July 2014 is not been pleaded in the complaint. Hence the question of deficiency in service on the part of opponent does not arrised and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          12) Point No.1 to 3 ; On perusal of the allegation the opponent No.1 had admitted that the complainant is customer of the Opponent No.1 bank and bank had issued ATM cards are not in disputes. But the main objection of the opponents is that, the complainant is not sure when he had lost the card and the first complaint was registered to the opponent No.1 bank on 18/8/2014, on issuing letter by complainant bank on 16/8/2014 and not prior to that.  That is the opponent has denied the application given by complainant to opponent when somewhere in month of June 2014, when card was lost by the complainant. This fact that the complainant had moved application when card was lost in month of June 2014, to O.P.No.1’s bank is not been proved by the complainant either by way of documentary evidence nor by oral evidence. That means when it is the case of complainant that he had given application immediately after card was lost to the O.P.No.1’s bank, to prove this fact the complainant neither produced any document that the opponent even after moving application to stop the ATM card operation has failed to do so. Hence the allegation that the bank has failed to stop the transaction of card is not been proved by the complainant beyond doubt. Hence the allegation cannot be believed and accepted.

          13) The another objection that the complainant has lost number of card before issuance of this card, which is lost in month of June 2014 has to be believed because, the complainant had not denied that before issue of this card i.e., which is lost in month of June 2014 opponent No.1’s had not issue any card i.e., ATM card to complainant and same are lost. The another point to be noted here is that, the complainant had failed to produce copy of F.I.R. filed in concerned police station complaining loss of ATM card, before this forum. But as per contention of opponent No.1, the complaint lodged before the police station, stating that the complainant has lost ATM card somewhere in month of Feb 2014 and according to allegation in complaint the complainant had lost card in month of June 2014. This fact that the card was blocked in month of February 2014. Through Axis Bank, Davanagere is mentioned in application given on 27/8/2014 to P.S.I. Khade Bazar Police Station, Belagavi. Therefore the allegation that the card has been lost somewhere in month of June 2014 as alleged by complainant cannot be believed and accepted.

          14) The opponents submitted guidelines of R.B.I. which is a copy produced along with the objection wherein the opponents have marked and the same is under instruction VIII .. Lost-stolen card… under this head No.1 reads as;

  “If the card is lost/stolen, the cardholder must report the loss to the Bank, immediately for hot listing the card. Though the loss or theft may be reported to 24 hours Customer Care Centre, at his own expenses, the cardholder must confirm the same in writing to the bank as soon as possible. A copy of the acknowledged police complaint must accompany the said written confirmation.”

          By this instruction/guidelines as per the say of the opponents that the card holder may intimate the Bank within 24 hours of lost/stolen of ATM card. But in the present case on hand the complainant in his complaint contended that somewhere in June 2014 the card has been lost and it was intimated to bank in August 2014. That means the bank came to know the loss of complainant card after three months. Therefore the complainant has violated the ATM card conditions and guidelines. Hence it is to be attributed that the complainant has ulterly failed to lodge the complaint to the concerned police station and also failed to intimate the opponent bank as required. Therefore we answered the points No.1 to 3 in negative.

15) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here supra the complainant had failed prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

          16) Point.4: In view of the finding on points 1 to 3 proceeded to pass the following;

ORDER

          The complaint is dismissed. The complainant is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the opponents towards the cost.

 

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 29^th day of April 2016)

Member                Member                    President.

gm*