Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/19/2021

Sri.Nageshappa S/o K.Shivarudrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Karnataka Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.K.P.Kashinatha

29 May 2023

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:02/03/2021

DISPOSED ON:29/05/2023

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

C.C.NO:19/2021

DATED: 29^th May 2023

 

PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                  Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER

 

COMPLAINANT	Sri. Nageshappa      S/o K.Shivarudrappa,      Age about 48 years,      Worker in Audit Office,      Burujanahatti, Chitradurga City,      Chitradurga.   (Rep by K.P.Kashinath, Advocate)
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTIES	The Manager, Karnataka Bank Limited.,       The Manager, Karnataka Bank Limited.,   Mahaveera Circle,     (Rep by L.Madhusudhana, Advocate)

 

::ORDER::

 

By Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER.

 

       

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant Under Section 35 Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction to direct the OPs to pay sum of Rs.84,000/- withdrawn from the ATM by some 3^rd party along with interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing physical and mental agony and for such other relief as this commission deems fit.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

 

Complainant is resident of Chitradurga and he is the customer of the OP1 Bank from past 15 to 20 years.  Complainant was having Savings Bank Account in OP1 Bank and the said account was bearing No.1362500101599101 for transacting with the said bank and for withdrawal of the amount complainant was using ATM card which was obtained from the OP1 bank ATM card was bearing No.6072700628055662.  Complainant being the customer of the OP1 bank had used the said ATM card for his financial transaction.

 

        3. Complainant was having sufficient balance in his savings bank account.  Complainants amount was withdrawn by same 3^rd party on 28/10/2019 from Bangalore Vaddarapalya ATM branch for sum of Rs.10,000, 5000, 5000 and 5000 and again on 29/10/2019 from Bangalore Govindapura ATM branch an amount of Rs.9,500 and again on 03/11/2019 from Bangalore Nagavara road ATM branch an amount of Rs.10,000, 5000, 10,000, 5000, 10,000 totally amounting to Rs.84,500 was withdraw from the complainants account by some unknown 3^rd party.

 

        4. Complainant came to know about the withdrawal of the said amount from his account and on 04/11/2019 OP2 bank informed the complainant from their mobile No.8242229894 and intimated the complainant about the withdrawal of the amount from the complainants account.  Then complainant blocked this account and several times the complainant informed the fact of monetary loss because of about said transactions after which complainant lodged Police complaint before CEN and case was registered in Crime No.94/2020 the complainant has not noticed the amount withdrawn from his account despite depositing the funds to his account through CDM Machine on 02/11/2019 to the tune of Rs.47,000/- and 10,000/- for which complainant has received sms alert conformation which showed total balance.  In complainant account.  The complainant could not notice the transactions which were happened on 28/10/2019 and 29/10/2019 and the said transactions were not done by the complainant as complainant has not gone to Bangalore and said ATM cash was with complainant only.  Complainant has also not given the ATM card no and also otp was not shared to the 3^rd party but amount was withdrawn from the complainant account but complainant was astonished of the said transaction.  Later complainant had lodged complaint at ombudsman office for which the bank ombudsman has closed complainants claim stating that per transaction liability of the customer share be limited to the transaction value or Rs.10,000/- whichever is lower.  Though the complainant reported the incident to the bank on 06/11/2019 the OPs have not taken any action against the 3^rd party.  Hence complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank have filed this present complaint.

 

        5. After issuance of notice to OPs 1 & 2.  Later on 18/11/2021 Advocate for OP filed an application Under Section 161 of CPC and prayed, this Hon'ble Commission to permit OP to file version.  Advocate for complainant submitted no objection to the said IA.  Hence IA was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- but the order sheet reveals that cost of Rs.1000/- was not paid to the complainant and there is no endorsement to that effect to take version on record. 

6. Affidavit evidence of complainant is filed Exhibit A-1 to A-8 is marked and closed their side evidence.

 

        7. Chief Affidavit evidence of OP1 is filed by one Shri G.Surendrababu and prayed time for further evidence.  But in spite of sufficient opportunity OP did not choose to file further evidence hence further evidence of OP was taken as nil.

 

        8. Heard the arguments of complainant.  But OP did not choose to submit arguments hence arguments of OP was taken as heard.

 

 

9. Points that arise for our consideration are as follows:-

 

 

1. Whether complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What Order?

 

10. My answers to the above points are as follows:

1. Negative 

2. Negative

3. As per final order

 

 

:: REASONS ::

        Complainant was a customer of OP1 bank and was having savings bank account with OP1 bank bearing account no:1362500101599101 and further ATM card was also obtained by the complainant from OP 1 bank.  The said ATM card was bearing no:6072700628055662 and said ATM card was used by the complainant for his financial transaction complainant was having sufficient balance in his saving bank account but on 28/10/2019 some 3^rd party from Bangalore Vaddarapalya ATM branch sum of Rs.10,000, 5000, 5000 and 5000 was withdrawn. Again on 29/10/2019 an amount of Rs.9500 was withdrawn from Govindapura ATM branch Bangalore again on 03/11/2019 from Bangalore Nagavara ATM branch an amount of Rs.10,000, 5000, 10,000, 5000, 10,000 was withdrawn from complainant account by some unknown 3^rd party.  Now complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP1 bank for the monitory loss suffered by the complainant now the crux of the matter is to consider whether there is deficiency in service on part of the OPs bank.  Complainant came to know about the withdrawal transactions from his accounts on 04/11/2019 when OP2 informed the withdrawal of the amount from complainant account then the complainant block this account later complainant Lodged Police complaint before CEN Police Station which was registered in Crime No.94/2020.  But complainant submits that he had not noticed the amount withdraw from his account.

 

Moreover complainant have not pleaded whether complainant have registered his mobile no to get sms alert from the said bank and also complainant have not produced any cogent documents to show that his mobile no has been registered with OP bank.  Moreover complainant have also deposited certain amount to his account through CDM machine on 02/11/2019 and had deposited Rs.47,000/- and 10,000 but complainant admits that he has received sms alert confirmation which showed his total balance in his account.  When such being the case the complainant should have received sms alert confirmation for the transaction made on 28/10/2019, 29/10/2019 and 03/11/2019 for a total amount of Rs.84,500 which was withdrawn from the complainants account.  But when complainant deposited certain amount through CDM machine on 02/11/2019 3 days before the said alleged transaction had taken place but complainant have not taken any action.  When complainant has contended that he had received sms alert for the transactions made through CDM machine on 02/11/2019 but complainant is stating that he has not received any sms alert for the alleged transaction on 28/10/2019, 29/10/2019 and 03/11/2019 which is not believable.  Either complainant is stating false that he had received sms confirmation for the transaction made in CDM machine on 02/11/2019 but not received sms alert confirmation for the heavy transactions made on 28/10/2019, 29/10/2019 and 03/11/2019 which is not believable    if he had registered his mobile no with OP bank. Now the complainant has to prove that he had registered his mobile no to show his genuineness that he has come before this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands if he had received message for CDM machine transactions then he should have received sms alert for the transactions made on 28/10/2019, 29/10/2019 and 03/11/2019.

 

After the CDM machine transaction also complainant has kept quit even after receiving sms alert showing balance in his account after getting sms alert also complainant has kept quit after seeing the balance also.  But complainant has kept quit for more than 7 days of the alleged transaction and has raised his voice after lapse of 7 days.  If complainant would have reported the transaction happened well within time and if same was communicated to the bank then the bank could have avoided the future transactions due to the delay in reporting the transactions OP bank has no liability as the fault is on the part of the complainant.  If the complainant would have reported an unauthorized electronic banking transactions after 7 working days then the total loss has to be borne by the complainant / customer.  In the instant case also complainant has reported unauthorized banking transaction after 7 days.  As such complainant did not take care of the withdrawals and later he made some credits to his accounts and despite the same complainant did not bother about the withdrawals and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Moreover for transaction of Rs.10,000/- an sms alert by providing otp to registered mobile no will be delivered and by putting said otp further transaction can be made.  For complainants fault he can't allege deficiency on the part of the OP and viewing from the any angle complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to show that his registered mobile no is registered with OP bank and also there is a delay in intimating the alleged unauthorized transaction for his fault complainant has to suffer for his loss.  Viewing from any angle complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP hence we answer point 1 and 2 in the negative.

 

        For foregoing reasons we proceed to pass the following order.

:: ORDER ::

 

       Complaint filed by the complainant Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and

then pronounced in the open commission by us on 29^th  May 2023.)

 

 

  Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

 

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1: Sri. Nageshappa S/o K.Shivarudrappa, by way of affidavit evidence.

Witness examined on behalf of Opponents:

Nil

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ext.A-1	Certified Copy of Karnataka Bank Limited Statement
02	Ext.A-2	Certified Copy of FIR, dated:06/11/2019.
03	Ext.A-3	Certified Copy of Karnataka Bank Limited letter dated:06/11/2019.
04	Ext.A-4	Legal Notice dated:02/12/2020.
05	Ext.A-5	Indian Postal Receipt dated:02/12/2020.
06	Ext.A-6	Indian Postal Receipt dated:02/12/2020.
07	Ext.A-7	Indian Postal Acknowledgment dated:04/12/2020.
08	Ext.A-8	Indian Postal Acknowledgment dated:04/12/2020.

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponent:

 

Nil

     Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT