Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/39/2020

MD. Ifranullah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Administrative Officer, Reserve Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Md. Attullah Ansari

25 Jan 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-27-08-2022

Date of final hearing-25-01-2023

 Date of Order-25-01-2023

Case No. 39/2020

     MD. Irfanullah S/o Late H.A. Haseeb

     R/o- Goush Nagar, Bharra, P.O. and P.S- Chas,

      Bokaro, Jharkhand

Vs.

1. The Chief Administrative Officer,

Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

2.  The Managing Director, SBI, Head Office Mumbai
3.  The Senior Branch Manager, State Bank Of India,

Sector-1 Branch, Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct O.P. to pay Rs. 80,000/- (related to ATM withdrawal) with interest @ 18%  and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he is maintaining joint savings bank account No. 31071623502 at SBI Sector I Branch, Bokaro Steel City Distt. Bokaro with his wife Shahla Ghazali with ATM facility. Further case is that on 13.10.2018 massage was received on his Mobile No. 9471157449 that Rs. 40,000/- has been withdrawn twice at 11:40 P.M. and 12:05 A.M.  from Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) on 13.10.2018 while he was at Bokaro. On 14.10.2018 complainant approached O.P. No.3 and informed about the occurrence who was advised to lodge FIR in the Cyber cell accordingly criminal case was registered on 15.10.2018 in the Cyber P.S. Bokaro but nothing was done. Further case is that on 20.10.2018 complainant lodged claim before the O.P. No.3  about fraudulent withdrawal of money but no action was taken hence he approached RBI but his case was closed hence this case has been filed with above mentioned prayer.
3. As per W.S. of the O.P. Bank alleged withdrawal is admitted fact but it is apparent that said withdrawal has been made by the debit card holder because it is necessary to use debit card and thereafter, insert PIN or OTP which are having secret number and known to the card holder only, hence there is no deficiency in service and case is liable to be dismissed.
4.  Now point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed ?
5. Complainant has not been examined as witness in this case to prove the facts related to his case. There is no information to this Commission regarding progress of the criminal case. So far, withdrawal of Rs. 80,000/- is concerned it is very much apparent from the fact of this case as well as the papers annexed with the complaint petition that on 12.10.2018 at 11:40 P.M. first SMS was received regarding withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/- by ATM at Varanasi and thereafter, second SMS was received on 13.10.2018 at 12:05 A.M. regarding withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/- by ATM at Varanasi. At this place we may take judicial notice of the distance between Bokaro and Varanasi which is easily approachable by road or train and that distance may be covered within 6 to 7 hours journey.  It is important to note here that ATM Card of the complainant was remained with him and only the complainant was aware about it’s PIN which is secret number hence without use of said secret number such transactions are not possible.  Complaint petition and Annexure-1 are disclosing the fact that for the first time matter has been reported to the bank in writing on 20.10.2018 with delay of about 8 days. Annexure-2 is disclosing that Cyber Case has been filed on 15.10.2018  with delay of 2 days. Therefore, there is no promptness on the side of the complainant in reporting the matter to the competent authority. It is admitted fact that earlier complainant has given wrong account number to the Police as well as Bank to which he has corrected later on. These facts are sufficient to show that there is negligence on the part of complainant itself.  Therefore, it is apparent that complainant has not proved its case for grant of relief as prayed.
6. In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove his case for grant of relief as prayed, rather it may be a case of cyber fraud for which this Commission is having no jurisdiction to take action in criminal side.
7. Accordingly this case is dismissed on merit on contest.

 

           

   (J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

                                                                                               

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                                   Member