CC/4/2019
V Satheeshkumar
S/o Prabhakaran
Gokulam, M.H.S Road
Pudunagaram Post - Complainant
Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad – 678 503
(By Adv. T V Sudharsh)
1. Manager,
State Bank of India
Main Branch
Railway Station Road
Coimbatore.
2. The Manager - Opposite parties
State Bank of India
Main Branch, Fort Maidan
Palakkad – 678 001.
(By Adv. G Ananthakrishnan)
O R D E R
By Smt Vidya A, Member
1. Brief Facts of the complaint
The Complainant is an account holder in the 1st Opposite Party Bank with Account number 31534155463 and ATM Card No. 622018016190028076. The Complainant was working in Coimbatore and his salary was being credited in the above SB Account. On 09.09.2018 at 23.55 hrs to 10.09.2018 00.05 hrs the Complainant got message in his mobile phone showing withdrawal of Rs 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) in eight transactions of Rs 10,000/- in each and the fraudulent and unauthorized withdrawal over from Pune. At that time, the Complainant was in Palakkad and he immediately blocked the account and gave complaint to the Opposite party by message on 10.09.2018 at 00.45 hrs from his mobile no. 9442254975 and he received a message from the Opposite Party accepting the Complaint and blocking of ATM in his another Mobile with number 8547154975. The Complainant is residing in Puthunagaram in Palakkad district and used to withdraw money by using the above ATM card from the ATM counter in Palakkad, which is under the control and supervision of 2nd opposite party.
On 10.09.2018 itself, the Complainant intimated the fact to Puthunagaram Police Station and filed a written compliant to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore and to the 1st opposite party along with the print out of the transactions received in his mobile. Again he submitted Complaints before the 1st opposite party on 01.10.2018, 15.10.2018 and on 12.11.2018, but he did not get any reliable answer from them. Even though he contacted the 1st opposite party several times, except the oral undertaking to remit the lost amount of Rs 80,000/- to the Complainant’s account, they did not do so. The Complainant lost the amount due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and because of the want of proper protection and security to the Complainant’s account. The Opposite parties are having branches and ATM through out Palakkad District and the Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The delay in crediting the amount to the account of the Complainant is also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs 80,000/- together with interest from 10.09.2018 till payment and to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused due to the delay in crediting the amount and the cost of the litigation
2. Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties. Even after receiving the notice, the 1st opposite party did not appear before the Forum. So the 1st opposite party’s name called, absent and they were set ex-parte. The 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The main contentions of the 2nd opposite party
The 2nd opposite party filed version denying all the contentions in the complaint. According to them, the 2nd opposite party is an unnecessary party to this complaint and in no way responsible for the loss if at all suffered by the Complainant. The Complainant is not maintaining any account with the 2nd opposite party. The Complainant has to be filed in Coimbatore where the Complainant is having account and not in Palakkad. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and hence they have to be exonerated from liability and the Complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext A1 to A10 were marked second opposite party also filed proof affidavit. The 2nd opposite party filed a statement on 11/11/2019 that the matter is settled and the disputed amount of Rs 80,000/- was credited to the Complainant’s account on 28/01/2019.
The main points to be considered.
(1) Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain
the complaint?
(2). Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties?
(3) If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation
Heard
6. Points: No.1
As per the 2nd opposite party’s version, the complainant is maintaining his account with the 1st opposite party and not having any account in the 2nd opposite party Bank. So the complaint has to be filed in Coimbatore.
The 2nd opposite party is a branch office of the State Bank of India in Palakkad. Further the amount was credited to the complainant’s account by the first opposite party and the 2nd opposite party filed statement to the effect that the matter is settled and the amount is credited to the complainant’s account. This shows that they have taken up the conduct of the proceedings in the complaint. They have acquiesced to the jurisdiction of this Commission
7. Point No. 2&3
Complaint in his affidavit has stated that immediately after the receipt of summons from the Forum, the 1st opposite party credited Rs 80,000/- to his account on 28/01/2019 and there is a delay of 140 days in crediting the amount even after repeated requests. So he is entitled to get compensation and interest from 10.09.2018 to 28/01/2019 together with cost of this litigation.
8. The 2nd opposite party in his affidavit had stated that the complainant himself is responsible for the withdrawal of the amount from his account. The Bank always cautions its customers to maintain secrecy in ATM as well as internet transactions through various modes of communications. Without using the card and the secret pincode provided, nobody can withdraw money from the ATM. The confidentially to be maintained is informed at the time of availing the ATM facility and it is also clearly specified in the Book containing instructions of operations sent along with the ATM card. So the Bank cannot be held liable for the acts of the Complainant. Further, in the settlement filed by 2nd of opposite party they stated that the amount was credited to the Complainant’s account on 28/01/2019 and the Complainant filed the complaint on 13/5/2019 hiding these facts and so he had approached the Forum with unclean hands.
9. This contention of the opposite party is not correct. The money was withdrawn from the complaint’s account on 09.09.2018 at 23.55hrs to 10.09.2018 at 00.45hrs. The complaint before this Forum was filed on 01.01.2019 and the amount was credited to his account on 28/01/2019. So there is a delay of 140 days in crediting the amount.
This is a clear deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. As per the State Bank of India Compensation Policy (Banking services) 2018. The customers are advised to notify the Bank of any unauthorized electronic banking transactions at the earliest after the occurrence of such transaction. Further, in cases where the responsibility for the unauthorized electronic banking transactions lies neither with the Bank nor with the customers, but lies elsewhere in the system, and the information regarding the fraudulent transaction is reported to the Bank within three working days, customer has zero liability. Here the complainant informed the Bank about the unauthorized transaction immediately after its occurrence.
So as per the Reversal Time Line for Zero Liability/Limited Liability of a customer enumerated in 4.6.4 of the above policy
“On being notified by the customer, the bank will credit (shadow reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorized electronic transaction to the customer’s account within 10 working days from the date of such notification by the customer”.
10. Here as soon the transaction occurred, the customer blocked his account and contacted the Bank by sending SMS and received message from the Bank accepting the complaint and blocking ATM.
It is the Bank’s duty to refund the money as long as the customer has followed the bank’s fraud reporting procedures in a timely manner.
Here, even though the 1st opposite party refunded the amount, there was a delay of 140 days in crediting the amount to the complainant’s account. This deficiency on their part caused mental agony to the complainant and unnecessarily dragged him before the Forum. So the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant for that.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties (1) To pay 9% interest for Rs 80,000/- from 10.09.2018 to 27.01.2019 amounting to Rs 2762/-
(2) To pay Rs 7500/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.
(3) and to pay Rs 2500/- a cost of this litigation.
The Order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order;
Pronounced in the open court on this the 8th day of November 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A Member.
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Printout of block message given by Complainant dated 09.09.19
Ext.A2 - Message received from SBI DGT of blocking the ATM Card
dated 10.09.18
Ext.A3 – Reply to the Complainant’s complaint by SBI dated 10.09.18
Ext.A4 - Petition by Complainant to Dysp, Coimbatore dated 10.09.18
Ext.A5 – Reply from Dy. Commissioner to complaint dated 11.09.18
Ext.A6 - Letter to opposite party No.1 by complainant dated 10.09.18
Ext.A7 - Reminder to 1st opposite party by complainant dated 01.10.18
Ext.A8 - Reminder to 1st opposite party by complainant dated 15.10.18
Ext.A9 - Reminder to 1st opposite party by complainant dated 12.11.18
Ext.A10- Account statement of complainant dated 10.09.18.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL
Cost: Rs. 2500/-
