CC Filed on 31.12.2009
Disposed on 10.05.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 10th day of May 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 219/2009
Between:
Sri. B.R. Krishna, C.H.C – 66, Police Department, Bethamangala Police Station, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District. (By Advocate Sri. G.V. Gopal Reddy) | ….Complainant |
V/S The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Oorgaum Branch, Robertsonpet, K.G.F, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District. (By Advocate Sri. V. Sreedhara Murthy) | ….Opposite Party |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay Rs.5,900/- with interest, costs and to block the old ATM card issued to complainant.
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant was working as C.H.C-66 in Police Department at K.G.F during 2006. At that time he opened S.B. account No. 64005739507 on 15.07.2006 with OP-Bank and his monthly salary was being credited to that account. The complainant was provided ATM card No. 5046454008900022536 and he was transacting with the help of that ATM card to withdraw the amount from his S.B account. It is alleged that subsequently the complainant lost his ATM card and he approached personally to OP-Bank and gave a complaint and as per the direction of the Manager of OP-Bank, he also gave a requisition for blocking the earlier ATM card and for issue of new ATM card. Further it is alleged that the OP-Bank issued in January 2008 a new ATM card No. 504654008900043821 and that the complainant was using the new ATM card for transacting in the said S.B. account.
It is alleged that the complainant was not very particular regarding the balance available in his S.B. account after carrying a transaction by using ATM card. Recently he verified the entries in his S.B. account and found that from 25.02.2009 till 01.12.2009 there were 8 debit entries of different amounts shown to have been withdrawn using his old ATM card. Further it is alleged immediately the complainant approached the Manager of OP-Bank and informed regarding the illegal transactions and to take necessary action against the person who illegally used the old ATM card, with the help of CCTV camera record, but no action was taken. Further that thereafter the complainant approached the Divisional Manager of OP-Bank at Bangalore on 12.12.2009 and gave complaint but he did not receive any reply from Divisional Manager. Therefore the complainant has alleged that there was deficiency in service by OP-Bank as it did not block the earlier ATM card soon after reporting its loss.
3. The OP appeared and contested the claim of complainant. The OP admitted that complainant is having S.B. account and that he was issued ATM card (old) and that due to loss of that old ATM card a new card was issued to him as alleged. Further it is contended that complainant had not surrendered the old ATM card but had obtained the second ATM card and he was operating both the ATM cards. Therefore OP has requested to dismiss the complaint.
4. The parties filed affidavits and complainant filed documents. We heard the arguments.
5. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the OP-Bank is liable for reimbursing
the amount drawn by using the old ATM card
of complainant?
Point No.2: To what order?
6. After considering the records and submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: The complainant has alleged that the following withdrawals were made by using his old ATM card after he reporting the loss of said card to OP.1.
1. 25.02.2009 Rs.500/-
2. 15.03.2009 Rs.500/-
3. 20.03.2009 Rs.200/-
4. 11.04.2009 Rs.400/-
5. 02.05.2009 Rs.500/-
6. 06.10.2009 Rs.2000/-
7. 03.11.2009 Rs.1000/-
8. 01.12.2009 Rs.1000/-
--------------
Total Rs.6100/-
In the complaint the complainant has by mistake shown the total of the above debit entries as Rs.5,900/- but the total of the said debit entries comes to Rs.6,100/-. The OP has produced the extract of S.B. account relating to complainant. The perusal of the said extract shows that the above debit entries were shown to be the amounts withdrawn from old ATM card of complainant. From the account extract produced by OP it can be said that new ATM card was first used on 06.02.2008. Therefore one can say that the transactions stated above made by old ATM card were the transactions made subsequent to the issue of new ATM card.
The complainant stated that he lost his old ATM card and reported the same to the Manager of OP-Bank and he gave requisition for issue of new ATM card and to cancel the lost ATM card. That part of the allegation made by the complainant is not disputed in substance. In para.3 of the version it is stated as follows:
“The allegations made by the complainant in para-3 (para number is not given) of the complaint to the effect that he was drawing salary in ATM Card with No. 5046454008900022536 and due to loss of his ATM card new card issued to him in No. 504654008900043821 is correct.”
However in para.10 of the version the OP has contended that the complainant had not surrendered the old ATM card and by obtaining new ATM card the complainant used to operate even the old ATM card.
The complainant has alleged that he lost his old ATM card and reported the same to the Manager of OP-Bank and requested to cancel the old ATM card. In that event one cannot expect that the old ATM card should be surrendered to OP-Bank. It becomes the duty of the concerned officer of OP-Bank to block the old ATM card so that it could not be used to withdraw the amount from the S.B. account of complainant. The stand taken by OP is inconsistent. When this inconsistency is brought to the notice of the Learned Counsel for OP, he requested time to file amended pleading after verification of true facts. However evenafter lapse of sufficient time he did not come forward with any amendment application.
From the facts admitted by the OP, one has to hold that there is deficiency in service on its part in not taking proper steps to block the old ATM card soon after the receipt of the report regarding its loss. Hence we hold point No.1 in affirmative.
Point No.2: Interest at the rate of 9% p.a. may be awarded to the complainant from the dates of respective illegal withdrawals till the date of payment of said amounts to him. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP-Bank shall pay Rs.6,100/- to complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the dates of respective illegal withdrawals till the date of payment, within 6 weeks from the date of this order.3
If the old ATM card is not already blocked proper steps may be taken to block the said card.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 10th day of May 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
