CC Filed on 23.07.2009<br /> Disposed on 08.07.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 08th day of July 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 55/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Kum. Asma Naveen,<br /> Aged about 28 years,<br /> Lecturer in Biology,<br /> Working in Methodist Junior College,<br /> Kolar City,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. Chandrappa & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> The Manager,<br /> State Bank of Mysore,<br /> Kolar Branch,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the wrongful debit entry of Rs.25,000/- dated 27.01.2009 in her S.B. account with costs and interest etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant is having S.B. account No. 64010996455 with OP and she was also issued ATM card No. 5046454008000039448. She has been transacting her S.B. account from two years. Generally she used to withdraw the amount through her ATM card. <br /> <br /> It is alleged that on 06.02.2009 the complainant came to know that there was a debit entry for Rs.25,000/- dated 27.01.2009 in her S.B. account shown to be the amount withdrawn through her ATM card. It is alleged that she did not transact with her ATM card on 27.01.2009 and she had not withdrawn any amount, but her S.B. account is reportedly debited. She alleged that she has not divulged the secret PIN number of her ATM card to any person. <br /> <br /> Further it is alleged that on 06.02.2009 itself she gave complaint to OP. She received letter dated 06.03.2009 from OP stating that the disputed transaction is successful and genuine transaction as per verification done by Head Office. Not satisfied with the reply she got issued legal notice dated 08.04.2009 and thereafter filed the present complaint on 23.07.2009. <br /> <br /> 3. The OP appeared and filed version. The complainant having S.B. account with OP with facility of ATM card is not disputed. It is contended that on receipt of complaint on 06.02.2009 regarding debit entry for Rs.25,000/- dated 27.01.2009, the verification was got done through I.T. Service Department, Head Office through ATM Log provided by ASC and it was found that the transaction was successful and genuine. Further it is contended that as per ATM journal print log the response code is ‘000’ which means it was successful and genuine transaction done by using the ATM card of complainant. The journal log also reflected the card number of customer which evidences the use of card for that transaction. The OP produced copy of journal print log relating to this transaction. It is contended that it is the duty of complainant to maintain the secrecy of ATM PIN number and safe custody of ATM card. Therefore it is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. The other allegations made in the complaint are denied. <br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed affidavits and documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for parties. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves that there <br /> was deficiency in service?<br /> <br /> Point No.2: To what order?<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the records and the working system of ATM our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: Considering the technology of ATM (Automated Teller Machine) working system, it can be said that ATM cannot be operated and transaction is not possible unless the ATM card is inserted in the ATM and secret password is fed by the cardholder. The Learned Counsel for complainant submits that some one might have created the forged card and somehow coming to know the secret password (PIN) might have drawn the amount. Further he submitted that there might be some error in the working system of ATM. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for OP contended that creating forged ATM card and knowing the secret password through some other source is highly remote and some one must have used the ATM card provided to complainant and she must have divulged the secret PIN number provided to her to some other person. <br /> <br /> Some one fabricating ATM card and fraudulently obtaining the secret password provided to complainant, cannot be inferred unless there are direct or circumstantial evidence. The complainant making such bare allegation, has not produced any direct or circumstantial evidence. The complainant who is aged about 28 years is a Lecturer in Biology working in Methodist Junior College, Kolar. It appears she is a full time employee. The entries in her S.B. account pass book relating to different dates show that there were three-four withdrawals on the same day on certain occasions. There were also deposit of amounts through cheques and cash on different dates in a month. Therefore it can be said that the transactions in her S.B. account not related merely to credit of her salary and withdrawal of that amount. Therefore some confidential person of complainant crediting and withdrawing the amount from S.B. account is quite possible. The verification of Video Surveillance System (VSS) cassette installed if any in the ATM centre would have helped a lot to find out the culprit. It appears both parties have not made any attempt for it. The pleading and evidence of both parties is silent in this regard. Considering the evidence as a whole we think the complainant has failed to establish that the withdrawal was by use of fabricated ATM card and getting the secret password. Hence point No.1 is held in negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: As point No.1 is held in negative the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 08th day of July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />