DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.03.2021
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra,President:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she is a Saving Bank Account holder vide Account No.30252275963 of State Bank of India, Bhapur Branch, Berhampur. The complainant deposited the money for safety of her money out of which the O.P. Bank earns interest by way of investing its different plans/projects. The O.P. insisted the complainant for an application for ATM card for easy transactions and accordingly was issued one ATM card in favour of the complainant and the O.P. was deducting annual fees towards service charge from the accounts sue motu without any information. The complainant has no sources of income and leads very miserable life and deposits the money in her aforesaid savings Bank Account with the O.P. Bank for immediate necessities, so also for earning some interests thereon. While the matter stood thus, the complainant could not understand that an amount of Rs.60,000/- only was deducted from her aforesaid savings bank account though the complainant has never withdrawn such amounts on 07.02.2019. This facts came to her knowledge on 15.02.2019. Soon after the complainant met with the O.P. on 16.02.2019 and requested for crediting Rs.60,000/- to her said S.B. Account as early as possible. Since hard earnings of the complainant deposited in S.B. Account stated above have been unauthorisingly withdrawn, the complainant faced harassments causing mental agony. In the petition dated 16.02.2019 to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhapur Branch, Berhampur Ganjam i.e. O.P. the complainant submitted in details of her sorrows and requested to take necessary steps so that the complainant gets back her hard earned money. But there was no response from the O.Ps on such request letter till submitting one legal notice on 15.5.2019 to the O.P. which was received well in time. Inspite of receipt of the aforesaid complaint dated 16.12.2019 and legal notice dated 15.05.2019 the O.P. remained silent without taking any action towards crediting the unauthorized fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.60,000/- in to the S.B. Account of the complainant till date. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant filed this petition with a prayer to direct the O.P. to credit Rs.60,000/- to the Savings Bank Account No.30252275963 standing in the name of Smt. Niharika Patnaik, compensation of Rs.30,000/- for harassments and mental agony, litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notice was issued to the O.P. The O.P. neither appeared nor filed any written version, hence the O.P. was declared exparte on 16.03.2021.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocate for complainant is present. We heard argument from him for the complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It is a fact that the complainant has one SB Account with the O.P. Bank bearing No.30252275963 an amount of Rs.60,000/- had been withdrawn fraudulently by some unknown person despite the ATM card and pass word in her custody and debited from the aforesaid account on 7.2.2019 which came to the notice of the complainant on 15.02.2019. Knowing the fact she reported the matter to the concerned Branch of O.P. immediately and requesting for crediting the said wrong deductions of Rs.60,000/- on 16.02.2019 as it is not withdrawn by the complainant using her ATM. The said deduction of Rs.60,000/- has been shown as if withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- each in three occasions on 7.2.2019 by using ATM at Tellipara Road, Bilaspur. The complainant never visited to the said town. It is submitted that the complainant has no knowledge of such Tellipara Road, Bilaspur. Such fraudulent withdrawn of Rs.60,000/- is shown in the statement of SB Pass Book. As the amount debited from the account of the complainant was fraudulent and unknow to the complainant so the complainant approached to the O.Ps to investigate the matter and to credit the aforesaid deducted amount in the account of her. Despite complaint the O.P. had not taken any action for these illegal deduction of Rs.60,000/- from the account of the complainant. In the meanwhile of hearing the advocate for complainant filed a memo stated therein that the O.P. has credited Rs.30,000/- to the S.B. accounts of the complainant on 14.12.2020.
The O.P. neither step up to the grievance of the complainant nor taken any coercive action to redress over the matter despite installation of camera in each of the ATM counter throughout the country. The O.P. failed to take any footage from the concerned counter. There is a cyber crime Investigation Cell headed by the top cop of Superintendent of Police at New Delhi to investigate over his matter but the O.P. did not think it proper to concede the grievance to the cyber cell to redress the matters. The action of the O.P. shows infirmity to manage public money which makes insolvent to the innocent account holder. The intention of the nothing but to evade hard earned amounts of the complainant. The O.P. Bank being a largest institution and a large part of economy of the country has been regulated by them they should showed leniency to their customer by rendering proper services.
The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi held in the case of Bhadra N.Dalal versus Bank of India reported in 2012 CJ 177 wherein the Hon’ble Commission has pointed out its important comments that “Bank is responsible for any fraudulent withdrawal from ATM”. Furthermore there are certain guidelines from the RBI to maintain security on the electronic fraud cases and also the procedure of the Redressal of the customer grievance to neither of which the O.P. Bank has not complied with in the instant case. There are ram pager of ATM phising cases all over the world and cloning of their ATM cards by the delinquent and possibility of phising or cloning debit card for such fraudulent withdrawal can not be ruled out. There is a possibility that key loggers could have used at some ATM centers to captures the card data here Banks needs to ensure that their security has not failed and where there are two different versions of certain allegations can be made out the one in favour of the victims is universally accepted.
Section 43 (A) where a body corporate possessing dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information in a computer resource which it is owns controls or operates is negligent in implicating and maintain reasonable security practices and procedure thereby causes wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person such body corporate shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected.
Against the back drop of the above Development RBI constituted a committee in May 2010 under the Chairmanship of Sri N.Damodaram Ex-chairman SEBI to look into the banking services rendered to be retail/small customer and pensioner’s instructor and efficacy of grievance Redressal mechanism and to suggest majors for expeditious resolved of complaints. The committee submitted its final report on July 4th 2011 the important recommendation of the committees reads as follows:- “Zero liabilities against loss in ATM and online transaction”. There should be secure total protection policy: - “Zero liabilities against loss for any customer induced utilizing technology through ATM/ Pos online banking. The customer should not be made to be out of funds when any loss is suffered on account of ATM banking transactions. In all the above scenarious immediate temporary credit investigation should be afforded”.
It is held by the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi in 2018 (3) CPR 202 (NC)T.N. Ravi Prakash versus The Manager, State Bank of Mysore “ That video clipping would have been best evidence to show whether the complainant has used ATM or not. Non supply of video footage is a deficiency on service on the part of the Bank. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Commission that Bank should be honest in dealing with the general complaint.
In another case it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission New Delhi in Vidyanti versus State Bank of India and other 2015 CJ 838 (NC) such as:- “ Unauthorised withdrawal from ATM constitute deficiency in service on part of Bank”.
On foregoing discussion and in view of the above decisions of law, it is clear evident that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence in our considered view there is serious deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for which undoubtedly the complainant has sustained mental agony and financial losses for their deliberate negligence as such he is to be compensated.
In resultant the case of the complainant is allowed partly on exparte. The O.P is hereby directed to credit of Rs.30,000/- to the Savings Bank Account No.30252275963 standing in the name of Smt. Niharika Patnaik with 4% interest from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 20.06.2019 within sixty days from receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant with the above stipulated period failing which the total amount shall carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 22nd March 2021 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the concerned parties free of cost and a copy of same is to be sent to the server of
