D.O.F:21/05/2022
D.O.O:10/07/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.98/2022
Dated this, the 10th day of July 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Prabhakaran.K
S/o Late V.V Pokkan
Kolavayal (H) Vivekanada Nagar, : Complainant
P.O Kolavayal,
Kasaragod.
And
The Bank Manager
Canara Bank,
Kanhangad Branch : Opposite Party
(Adv: K. Sethumadhavan)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he is an account holder having a A/c No :0724101019588with Opposite Party bank in Kanhangad branch. He came to know that during the period between 25/04/2013 to 2015, there is a withdrawal of Rs. 73000/- from his account without his knowledge and consent by ATM transaction. He filed complaint before opposite Party complainant renewed the account and Opposite Party told to receive the pin number of ATM. He never used the ATM card. He never got any message through mobile phone about the transaction. He filed complaint before RBI ombudsman and they replied that it too late and they cannot interfere in the matter. When complainant approached opposite party for the redressal of the issue staff of opposite party behaved with very roughly and abused with pilty words. The act of the opposite Parties caused severe mental agony and complaint lost his hard earned money.
The complainant is seeking relief of the return of Rs. 73000/- the lost money and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the litigation.
The Opposite Party filed written version. Opposite Party denied the allegations. The case of Opposite Party is that complaint is barred by limitation, the case is filed after seven years and the allegation in the complaint is unbelievable and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The Opposite Party filed IA 290/2022 to consider the maintainability of the complaint. IA dismissed holding that complaint is maintainable.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and produced documents Ext A1 to A4 marked. Ext A1 is the intimation sent to Opposite Party, Ext A2 is the pass book copy, Ext A3 is ATM and Ext A4 is message of credit in his account.
The Opposite Party not adduced any evidence.
Following points arised for considerations in this case:
- Whether there is any unauthorised withdrawal of amount to the tune of Rs. 73,000/- from account of complainant as claimed?
- Whether there is a deficiency in service from Opposite Party?
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? And if so for what reliefs?
The Complainant has got a specific case that amounts to the tune of Rs. 73,000/- is withdrawn from his SB account in between 25/04/2013 and 2015. He never used his ATM card. Bank has no case that there is no withdrawal as claimed. But bank says claim is made barred limitations period. The Opposite Party did not produce any documents or adduced any oral evidence to prove their case. Bank has no case that complaint is false expect delay in filing the complaint. Delay in reporting itself is not a reason to reject the claim if claim is genuine. Bank alone can explain how amounts to the credit of complainant is lost. For this bank has no explanations. Even in cross examination no suggestion that amount is withdrawn by cheque or ATM in particular dates.
It is clear that the bank cannot claim any amount from the customer when a transaction is shown to be a “disputed transaction”. The bank can never recover from the customers only when it can unequivocally prove that the customer was responsible for such transactions independently through the civil court. The RBI guidelines is a clear mandate to exonerate a customer in such “disputed transactions”. The onus falls on the bank prove otherwise.
The bank owes a duty to the customer. Both have a mutual obligation to one and another. The bank, therefore is bound to protect the interest of the customer in all circumstances. There is no difficulty in holding that if a customer suffers loss in connection with the transactions make out without his knowledge by fraudsters, it has to be presumed that it is on account of the failure on the part of bank to put in place a system which prevents such withdrawals, and the bank are, therefore liable for the loss caused to their customers. In such circumstances bank is to approach the civil court and recover the amount from the persons who were responsible for such transactions.
Thus we hold that Opposite Party is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 73000/- un authorisedly withdrawn from the account of complainant with interest from date of complaint till payment. There is deficiency in service from Opposite party bank in not preventing un authorized transactions in time, we are of opinion that Rs. 15,000/- is reasonable compensation for deficiency in service in the case.
In the result complaint is allowed in part opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 73,000/- to the complainant towards loss amount with 7% interest from date of filing complaint till payment and directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) for compensation of deficiency in service and Rs. 3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
A1- Intimation sent to opposite Party
A2- Bank pass book copy
A3- ATM Card
A4- Message of credit in his account
Witness Examined
PW1- Prabhakaran. K
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
