DATE OF FILING-9.10.2012
DATE OF DISPOSAL-07.2.2014
O R D E R
Mrs.Minati Pradhan,Member
Deficiency in banking service is the allegation of the complainant. The complainant alleges that he is the customer of the Opposite Parties having S.B.Account No.10859152271 at State Bank of India,State Bank Road,Berhampur( Opp.Party No.1). He is also availing ATM facilities vide ATM Card No. 6220180003300190273, ID No.S10B000033027 . He further alleges that on 14.8.2012 at 8.12 P.M. he withdrawn Rs.1,000/- at Tata Benz ATM counter. From the balance slip he observed that Rs.20,000/- has been deducted from his S.B.Account No.10859152271. Subsequently, he obtained a mini statement which also reveals withdrawl of Rs.20,000/- on 13.8.2012. He had earlier withdrawn Rs.1000/- on 13.8.2012 at 11.58 at Gosaninuagaon ATM counter and his balance after withdrawal was Rs.35,646.97. The ;matter was informed to Opposite Party No.1 immediately who wanted a written complaint. Since 15.8.2012 was public holiday, he made a written complaint on 16.8.2012. The Opposite Party No. 1 in its letter dt.1.9.12 informed the complainant without any result. He on 2229.9.2012 lodged an FIR before the Gosaninuagaon P.S.. Despite his persuasions to Opposite Parties, no action was taken to get refund of the amount. Finding no other way out the complainant has filed this present consumer complaint with a prayer to get back his Rs.20,000/- and compensation for the loss,damage and harassment caused to him during the relevant period alongwith cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/- as a whole. In support of his case the complainant has filed certain documents which are marked Annexure-1 to 6 respectively.
2- The Opposite Parties entered their appearance through learned counsel and filed written version resisting the claim of the complainant as misconceived, baseless, untenable in law, facts ,circumstances and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted by the Opposite Parties that the ATM card is issued to the account holder subject to acceptance of terms and conditions . The account holder should take adequate precaution to protect his own interest and money while operating their ATM cards with the existing facilities. It is further submitted that no ATM transaction is possible without simultaneous use of card and PIN number. According to the Opposite Parties, in the case of the complainant, the PIN number and card was with the complainant and it is not possible to operate the ATM without of his conveyance and knowledge. As per their records, the ATM transaction was successful and a successful transaction is not possible without inserting a valid ATM card and entering the correct PIN. Therefore, they are not liable for payment of Rs.20,000/- and other compensation as prayed for by the complainant. However, it is raised objection regarding maintainability of the case on the ground of jurisdiction.
3- We have gone through the case in detail and perused the documents filed on record. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and gone through the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties in extenso. It is not disputed that the complainant is a customer of Opposite Party No.1 having S.B.Account No.10859152271 and he was availing the facility of ATM transactions. It is the case of the complainant that he operates the ATM card and the card and PIN number were kept with him. He could able to know his balance on transaction through Mini Statement. On 13.8.12 he withdrew Rs.1000/- at Gosaninuagaon SBI ATM counter his balance was Rs.35,646.97 after the withdrawal. On 14.8.12 he withdrew Rs.1000/- and he could find that the balance was Rs.14,646.97. Presuming unauthorized and fraudulent withdraw from his account, he immediately brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1. He on 16.8.2012 made written complaint to Opposite Party No.1 since 15.8.12 was a holiday. According to the complainant, he has not drawn the amount of Rs.20,000/- and the Opposite Party can be able to arrive at fraudulent withdrawal through CCTV footage available with them. He also filed F.I.R.before Gosaninuagaon P.S.,Berhampur on 20.9.2012 vide P.S.Case NO.110/2012. In support of the pleadings, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission,New Delhi reported in the case of Bhadra N.Dalal Vrs. Bank of India (2012)CJ 177(N.C) and Hon’ble State Commission,West Bengal in the case of State Bank of India Vrs. Hariom Tiwari and another, reported in 2011 CJ 189(W.B.) and pleaded that the complainant is innocent and the fraudulent withdrawal of such a big amount is keeping him in a fix all through with mental agony . Therefore, the Opposite Parties would be liable to reimburse the amount withdrawn with interest and compensation as prayed for in the petition of complaint.
4- On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties pleaded that withdrawal of cash is not possible without inserting ATM card and without entering the confidential PIN number given to the complainant. It is also pleaded that it is the duty of the complainant or ATM card holder to keep the PIN number as secret and confidential and not to divulge it to anybody. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties at the same time relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of State Bank of India Vrs. K.K.Bhalla in the Revision Petition No.3182 of 2008 and contended that in the line of the verdict of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi the case is liable to be dismissed as no deficiency of service or negligence is proved on the part of the Opposite Parties.
5. It is a fact that the money of the complainant was withdrawn and the complainant has denied to have drawn it. It is also to be noted that the complainant was quite vigilant bringing the whole matter to the notice of the Bank immediately and lodging an FIR in this regard. It also appears that the Bank was apparently convinced about the bona-fides of the complaint of the complainant. It was the obligation of the Opposite Party bank to investigate into the matter through CCTV footage to reach at the conclusion as to whether the complainant was actually drawn the amount or the amount was drawn in fraudulent manner by any stranger. The Opposite Parties have not produced the report of the CCTV footage of that period to clarify the matter better. Moreover, it is seen that such type of fraudulent withdrawal are happening now-a-days and there are a number of cases in this regard we have already dealt with. It appears that the concerned counter was not having security infrastructure to resist such type of fraudulent withdrawal of innocent customers.
6- The complainant has come up with this case before this Forum to get privilege under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. This Forum has been created under the beneficial legislation to help socio-economically under privileged people to settle their grievances quickly with least expenses in a sympathetic manner. Taking into account the socio-economic background and keeping in view the spirit of the legislation and having regard to the verdict of the Hon’ble National Commission,New Delhi as filed by the complainant as stated above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- .
7- In view of the above and considered to the facts of the case from all its ramifications, we direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to reimburse a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) in favour of the complainant. Considering the circumstance of the case, we are not inclined to allow any compensation in favour of the complainant as claimed. However, a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand) is awarded towards cost of litigation in favour of the complainant to meet the ends of justice, which the Opposite Parties are to pay to the complainant. The above order has to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 7th day of February,2014
I AGREE(MEMBER) MEMBER
