Raghunath Bal filed a consumer case on 28 Dec 2016 against The General Manager,State Bank of India in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/202/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Sep 2017.
Orissa
Cuttak
CC/202/2013
Raghunath Bal - Complainant(s)
Versus
The General Manager,State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)
A Khan
28 Dec 2016
ORDER
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.
For the complainant: Mr. Adam Ali Khan,Advocate & Associates..
For the O.Ps : Sri V.P.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.
Mr. Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.
The complaint is against deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.
Shortly, the complaint is as follows:-
That the complainant is a bonafide customer of the O.Ps Bank having S.B.Account No.10603205976 and also having a ATM Debit Card No.6220180902900006278.
On 02.05.2012 the complainant came to know that on several occasions a sum of Rs.2000/- in each time has been debited from his S.B.A/cs. Since he had not done any transaction through his ATM Card but such transactions were made by debiting his A/c which appears like a cyber crime and he immediately lodged a complaint with O.P No.2 and also requested the O.Ps to block his S.B.Account.
On 01.06.2012 the complainant requested O.P No.2 to withdraw the blocking made in his S.B.Account in order to withdraw some money since the money was urgently required by the complainant. The complainant changed the secret pin No., and withdrawn the amount as required. On 28.06.2012 he received a message from mobile banking service and came to know that some other person is continuing to withdraw/utilise money from his account. He intimated the matter again to O.P No.2 and as advised by O.P No.2 the complainant requested the customer care service (ATM) for cancellation of the ATM Card. While up-dating his pass book the complainant came to know that a sum of Rs.51,232/- in totalhas already been withdrawn from his Account. The complainant again intimated the matter to O.P No.2 on 29.06.2012. In spite of the complaints lodged with O.P No.2 the O.Ps did not take any step to investigate the matter and to credit such amount to the account of the complainant. So the complainant lodged a complaint with O.P No.1 on 19.11.2012.
O.P No.1 registered said complaint on 24.11.2012 but no steps were also taken by O.Ps (1,2 & 3). The complainant again served a letter on O.P No.1 on 11.04.2013.
In spite of such letters, the O.Ps did not take any steps to refund the amount (which was already withdrawn/utilized by some other person) to the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice on O.P No.2 for recovery of the said amount i.e. Rs.51,232/- but in vain. The O.Ps did not take any step to refund the amount.
Finding no other way, the complainant took shelter of this Hon’ble Forum. He has prayed for refund of his money i.e. Rs.51,232/- along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 02.05.2012. He has also prayed for cost of litigation worth Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards physical and mental harassment.
The O.Ps vide their written version dt.08.02.2014 have intimated as follows:-
That fraudulent purchase have been made on online as POS through the ATM Debit Card of the complainant on many occasions to which the complainant states that neither he has made such purchases nor he has handed over his part of debit card or PIN number to anybody. In spite of retention of card and Pin number with the complainant, fraudulent purchases have taken place on different occasions from a single shop. Such complaint having been made by the complainant with the O.Ps, necessary investigation has been ordered by the Reserve Bank of India and necessary information having been given to the complainant stating that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.
That on receipt of the written complaint by the complainant, the concerned officer of the Bank immediately through its website forwarded the same to their concerned department for investigation and to send a report thereon with regard to such complaint. The officer of the concerned department investigated into the same and the result thereof was intimated to the complainant.
The O.Ps have denied any deficiency in service.
The O.Ps have also advised the complainant to seek relief before the Cyber Law Tribunal.
Vide affidavit dt.04.10.2016 the Chief Manager,SBI,Link Road Branch(O.P.2) has intimated the following facts on behalf of the O.Ps.
On receipt of the complaint regarding fraudulent withdrawal from the S.B.Account of the complainant, the mater was intimated to the concerned Department at Belapur,Mumbai and Belapur,Mumbai after conducting necessary investigation have informed to the Link Road Branch, Cuttack that the fraudulent withdrawal of money is nothing but a mere transaction made through internet.
They have further stated that since the purchase has been made through Net and as per the agreed terms and conditions at the time of availing service of an ATM, the purchase made through Net will automatically be called as point of sale (POS) and the Bank cannot be held responsible on any respect for such purpose.
They have also endorsed a copy of Terms and conditions relating to ATM debit card wherein it is stated under terms and conditions as follows:-
The Bank bears no liability for the unauthorized use of the card. The responsibility is fully that of the cared holder. [(ii)(a)].
Any financial loss arising out of unauthorized use of the card, till such time the Bank hotlists the card (disabling the utilization of the care) will be to the card holder’s account.[(ii)-(b)].
“The Bank is not responsible for refusal by any ME to accept or honour the card nor shall it be responsible in any respect for the goods or services supplied to the card holder. The card holder shall handle or resolve all claims or disputes directly with such establishment and no claim by the card holder against the ME is subject to a set off or counter claim against the Bank. The card holder’s account will be credited only on receipt of money from the ME or the acquirer [(ii) (k)]
We have gone through the case in details and heard the learned advocates. We have perused the documents, papers, versions as filed by the complainant and as well by the O.Ps.
We have observed that the ATM card of the complainant is misused by some unknown miscreants/culprits. Such miscreants/culprits have managed to utilize the card for the purchases made through Net which is automatically called as POS(Point of Sale).
We have also observed that as per terms and conditions of ATM debit card, the Bank is not responsible for any transaction through NET or through the Point of Sale(POS).
ORDER
Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above and also to meet the ends of justice, we have observed that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Hence the case is dismissed.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2016 under the seal and signature of this Forum.
(Sri B.N.Tripathy )
Member.
(Sri D.C.Barik)
President.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.