Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/1591

REMY MOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager CITI Bank N.A, - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2019

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 05.09.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 24.04.2019

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027    

 

 

CC.No.1591/2015

DATED THIS THE 24^th APRIL OF 2019

PRESENT

 

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA R.K, BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	REMY MOL, D/o Oommen Cheriyan, No.5/62, 1st Floor, K Cross, New Gurupanapalaya, Tavarekere, Bangalore-29.   In person	1       2	The Manager, CITI BANK N.A. No.5, M G Road, Bengaluru-560 001.     The Manager, ICICI BANK LIMITED., Block E, Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bangalore-560 045.   By.Adv.Rangarajan & Prabhakaran- OP-1 By.Adv.S.Ramakrishnan Shiva & Co., OP-2

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

1.        This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant prays to direct the OPs to refund of Rs.35,500/- and Rs.9,900/- and to pay compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- from Ops 1 and 2.

2. The brief fact of the complaint is as under.          

            The complainant submitted that on 4.7.2015 around 7 pm, while travelling in the bus somebody has stolen her wallet and it contained cash of Rs.10,000/-, Citi bank and ICICI debit cards, IOB debit card, Citi bank credit card, HDFC credit card, PAN card, Aadhaar Card, Voter’s ID, driving license, RC book. To her shock and surprise, she was getting messages from the bank that cash has been withdrawn from her bank accounts and she was also able to collect few ATM slips from the security guard of State bank of Travancore. Then later she called the bank and blocked all her cards.

2a.      The complainant further submitted that on 5.7.2015 she filed a complaint before the police station and on 6.7.2015, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Ops 1 and 2. The Ops 1 and 2 had informed that she would have written down the PIN on her card. But the fact is that she had not written down her PIN anywhere and they also told her that the machine will accept only the right PIN and no one can do anything without getting the PIN.

2b.      The complainant further submitted that on 7.7.2015, she approached the manager of State Bank of Travancore, HSR Layout Branch and lodged a complaint with them as well and she requested him to show the CCTV footage. She could recognize those ladies who were travelling in the bus along with her and they were withdrawing her money. They also had a white piece of paper with them and they were looking into it and she suspect that they had written down some codes or PINs to transact and withdraw money. CITI bank also had given her wrong ATM details.

2c.      The complainant submitted that she has been visiting and calling the police station and banks, but there was no response from them. On 11.7.2015, she filed an RBI complaint with the banking ombudsmen. Only after this, Ops 1 and 2 responded and confirmed her that the right PIN was used and no money will be refunded. On 25.8.2015, she wrote a mail to the Ops 1 and 2 giving a notice to them.  The OP-1 replied to the mail and stated that the right PIN was used and they are unable to refund the amount and OP-2 also wrote a mail confirming the same, but she never got any response after that. Hence, there is a deficiency in service by the Ops 1 and 2 and the complainant has filed this complaint.

            3.        The notice was ordered to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties did appear and filed their version and denying the contents of the complaint filed by the Complainant.   The OP-1 submits that the complaint filed by the complainant is neither maintainable in law nor on facts of the case. There is no deficiency of service for the negligence of handling a debit card by the complainant. The OP cannot be held responsible for the said transactions. The complainant has clearly admitted that SBM ATM is used for the transactions. The SBM is a necessary party as it is aware of the details of the persons and for approving the transaction.

            3a.      The OP-1 submits that the complainant is holding a savings account with Citibank and the debit card was issued for the savings account by the said bank. Debit cards are used at ATM for instant withdrawal of cash, balance enquiry, fund transfers etc., The debit card requires electronic authorization of every transaction and the debits are reflected in the users/customer account immediately. The transactions are secured with the Personal Identification Number (PIN) authentication. The ATM transactions are secure transactions. The transactions can be done using the PINs.

            3b.      The OP-1 submits that the card bearing No.5497778023730401 was active and made 5 transactions in the ATM. The 5 transactions were ATM cash withdrawals which can be done only by entering the complainant’s confidential PIN.  Therefore, it may be concluded that either the complainant has himself withdrawn the aforesaid amount or has revealed the ATM PIN code to others. The complainant had called this OP on 4.7.2015 and requested to block the card. The said card was blocked on 4.7.2015 at 7.44 pm for security reasons and as per request of the customer.

            3c.      The OP-1 further submitted that the transactions were incurred prior to blocking/reporting loss of the card. Since the transactions were done through secured mode, the OP was unable to file the dispute and investigate on these transactions since temporary credit is generally not applicable for misuse on the lost card of customer and moreover, the transactions were made on the card account using ATM PIN which is known only to the customer.

            3d.      The OP-1 submits that the complainant had lodged a police complaint. It is the duty of the police department to investigate the case and file a FIR or B summary report. The complainant has not said anything regarding the investigation for having filed the complaint. The disputed transactions were done prior to the card blocking/reported lost and the transactions were PIN verified, the OP will not be liable. It is the duty of the complainant to keep the card in his custody and if the card is lost, the complainant is liable till the complaint is reported to bank. The OP has acted prudently and diligently and strictly adhered and followed the banking norms. On these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

            4.        The OP-2 submits that the complaint filed by the complainant is frivolous, baseless. The complainant has admitted that State Bank of Travancore ATM has been used for the transaction however she has failed to implead State Bank of Travancore as a party to this case. There is no deficiency of service for the reason that this OP cannot be held responsible for the negligence of handling a debit card by the complainant. The complainant about having a debit card issued by this OP is a matter on record therefore the same is not in dispute. Further, the issue has already resolved by this OP by a telephonic conversation with the complainant as on 28.8.2015 as a confirmation of the same was issued by this OP by an email.

            4a.      The OP-2 submits that the terms and conditions governing the ATM card are mentioned in the website for the issuance as well as of the usage of the ATM card.  The terms and conditions are also provided usually along with the debit card at the time of obtaining the card itself and it is the customer’s responsibility to ensure the safety of the card and the secrecy of the PIN number. The PIN number is specific to the customer and only the customer is privy to the same and it is clear that she has been negligent in not maintaining secrecy of the PIN for which the OP cannot be held liable. This OP has issued a detailed response dt.3.8.2015 to the complainant on her complaint before the banking ombudsman and have also sent a response to the banking ombudsman vide email dt.5.8.2015. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP. On these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OPs have filed their affidavits and reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objections. Both parties have filed written arguments. The complainant and OPs have produced documents which were not marked. We have heard the arguments of both sides and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.  

6.        Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1) Whether the Complainant prove the deficiency in service on

                the part of the OPs, if so, whether she is entitled for the

                relief sought for?

 

           2) What Order?

 

 

 

7. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1: In the negative

 

Point No.2: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:      On perusal of the pleadings, objections, evidence and documents of both the parties, in our opinion there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops 1 and 2. Admittedly, the complainant’s wallet was stolen on 4.7.2015 in the bus. In that wallet, she was having debit card of the OPs 1 and 2. The complainant also admitted that after getting messages from the bank that the cash has been withdrawn from her account and then she called the Ops 1 and 2 to block the card. The Ops 1 and 2 after receiving the call from the complainant immediately block the card.

9.        Further, the complainant approached the OP-1 bank for CCTV footage and the OP-1 Bank provided the CCTV footage. The complainant herself admitted that the ladies who were travelling in the bus had withdrawn the money. The complainant must have disclosed the PIN of the ATM. The above transactions were done before calling the bank for blocking of the card. The Ops 1 and 2 bank immediately after receiving the call from the complainant blocked the card. Hence, there is no negligence on the part of the Ops 1 and 2. Moreover, the complainant has been filed a complaint before the police station and FIR has been lodged.  Hence on the above, we do not find any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the Ops. The Ops have acted as per the rules and regulations of the bank and the complainant has failed to provide any documentary evidence to prove her case that the Ops are deficient and negligent on their part. Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant is with intention to get benefit by way of dubious methods. Hence, we do not find good ground to allow this case.   Hence, we come to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the Complainant liable to be dismissed holding that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we answered the Point No.1 in the negative.

10.      POINT NO.2: In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 24^th April 2019).

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)    PRESIDENT

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Remy Mol., who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Doc-1	Copy of the FIR
Doc-2	Letter of complaint dt.4.7.2015
Doc-3	Copy of the bank statements
Doc-4	Copy of the summary of account
Doc-5	Letter dt.6.7.2015
Doc-6	Card member dispute form
Doc-7	Letter to ICICI Bank dt.6.7.2015
Doc-8	Form of complaint with banking ombudsman
Doc-9	E-mail correspondence
Doc-10	ATM details given by CITI Bank
Doc-11	ATM payslips

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

Nandish Prabhakar., who being the 1^st Opposite Party was examined.

 

Vyshak Kannan, Manager-Legal., who being the 2^nd Opposite Party was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party

 

Doc-1	Letter dt.3.8.2015
Doc-2	Complaint to Banking ombudsman
(ROOPA.N.R) MEMBER		(PRATHIBHA .R.K)       PRESIDENT