Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/89/2017

Jags - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

27 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/89/2017
Date of Institution	:	30/01/2017
Date of Decision	:	27/09/2017

 

Jags s/o late Sh. Kartar Chand C.No.22, 2^nd level, SCO 94-95, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

The Canara Bank, SCO 117-118, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

……Opposite Party

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. G.K. Juneja, Counsel for the OP

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant had given his ATM debit card replacement application to branch official of the OP Mr. Ravi on 17.8.2017, but, he never hotlisted the card which was mandatory.  On 9.9.2016, the complainant received a call from mobile No.9570783226 asking him to verify the card no. Thereafter from 9.9.2016 to 12.9.2016 six transactions of different denominations Rs.13,600/- were withdrawn from the complainant’s account No.0385101036647.  As per the complainant, RBI Lokpal (Ombudsman) vide order dated 17.12.2016 has already made bank to refund 50% of the amount.  It has been stated that the card was hotlisted or blocked only on the day the complainant was issued the new card and the crime had already taken place. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been averred that the complainant had given the application for replacement of the ATM debit card which was not necessary to be hotlisted immediately but before the issuance of the new card in due course of time as per bank rules. The complainant himself committed a mistake by responding to an unknown mobile call due to which the transactions took place in his account. It has been contended that the OP has not made any wrongful transactions and should not be held liable to refund the amount as asked by the complainant.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OP.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OP.
6.         The sole grouse of the complainant is that he gave his ATM debit card replacement application form to the OP on 17.8.2016, but, the card was not hotlisted, which was mandatory, and due to the negligence on the part of the OP, the complainant himself gave verification of his card number to someone who posed as an employee of the OP and thereafter from 9.9.2016 to 12.9.2016, six transactions of different denominations totaling Rs.13,600/- were withdrawn from the complainant’s account. The bank statement depicting the same is annexed at page 14 of the complaint. Aggrieved with the conduct of OP, the complainant wrote an application to the Cyber Crime Cell on 12.9.2016 (annexed at page 5 of the complaint) and to the OP on 16.9.2016 (annexed at page 7 of the complaint). Thereafter the complainant also approached the Lokpal (Banking) RBI on 22.9.2016 (annexed at page 10 of the paper book) and he was awarded 50% amount of his loss as compensation as per the Banking Ombudsman decision dated 17.12.2016.  Now the complainant has filed the present complaint with regard to the refund of the balance 50% amount of his loss.
7.         The stand taken by OP is that it is not mandatory to hotlist the ATM debit card immediately after filing the application for replacement of the same. It has been contended that it was a mistake of the complainant only who responded to an unknown mobile call due to which the transactions took place in his account.  Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the OP and it should not be held liable for the refund of the amount as sought for by the complainant.
8.         After going through the evidence on record, it is clear as per page 12 of the complaint that the Banking Ombudsman has already passed an order of refund of 50% of the fraudulent transaction and through the present complaint the complainant has approached this Forum for the refund of the remaining 50% amount which is opposed by the OP. At the outset, it is made clear that the complainant is admittedly a consumer qua the OP and, therefore, he is having full right to approach this Forum as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. Admittedly, refund of 50% of the fraudulent transaction has been granted to the complainant, but, the OP has not placed on record any such terms and conditions according to which it cannot be held liable for the refund of the whole amount as asked for by the complainant. Passing such an order for refund of 50% of the fraudulent transaction is in a way admission on the part of the OP of its fault and thereafter it is taking a contradictory stand that it is not liable for any deficiency in service. Moreover, the complainant has also raised one issue that the new card was issued to him in open and not in an envelope.  In general, the ATM card is sent in a sealed cover by post to the customer, but, the OP bank has not filed copy of any rules and regulations explaining why it issued the new card to the complainant in open. Undoubtedly, the OP bank is a nationalized public sector bank, therefore, it must follow the appropriate rules. Pertinently, there is no such mention of any reason that despite filing  application for replacement of the card by the complainant, why his card was not hotlisted immediately to escape from such fraudulent transaction.  Hence, the act of the OP bank for not acting promptly on the request of the complainant for the change of debit card and later giving lame excuses proves deficiency in service on its part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed as under:-

1. To refund the balance 50% amount of transaction to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
27/09/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member