Delhi

North East

CC/20/2019

Ms. Radha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Manager/Manager Central Bank of India & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 20/19

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Radha D/o Sh. Lala Ram R/o H. No. D-1/606, St No. 7-B, Ashok Nagar, Mandoli, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	The Senior Manager/Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch Office:- Jyoti Nagar, Delhi-110032   The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, (Zonal Office) At Sorabji Bhawan, Plot No. 4, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

06.02.19 15.03.23 25.05.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is having a Saving bank account bearing no. 3337609677 with Opposite Party No.1 and have deposited Rs. 1,76,764/- on 31.08.18. The Complainant stated that on 09.10.18 she applied for an ATM card but till date never make any use of that card. The Complainant stated that on 11.10.18 amount of Rs. 58,117/- is deducted/withdrawn from her account under various heads mentioned as “POS ATM PU” without any intimation to her. The Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 and requested to return the deducted amount but officials of Opposite Party did not pay any heed to her request. The Complainant also lodged police complaint at Seelampur, Delhi vide        diary no. 156178 dated 11.10.18 regarding the said deduction from her account. The Complainant stated that she had sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 05.12.18 via speed post and Opposite Party No.1 had sent a false and frivolous reply to Complainant. The Complainant made many requests to Opposite Party to return the amount in question but Opposite Party failed to return her deducted amount. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. She has prayed for Rs. 58,117/- with interest and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. She further prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed common written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Parties that the complaint is baseless and unsustainable in law as well as on facts and there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, as the POS transaction in question was successful and on 11.10.18 the Complainant visited and met the branch manager and disclosed before the branch manager of Opposite Party bank that she has disclosed the PIN no. to the culprits/ unknown person who had called her for taking PIN no. on the pretext that he is calling from the bank, thus, it is proved that the Complainant has committed mistake and failed to follow the terms and conditions of the ATM Debit Card issued by the Opposite Party bank.
3. It is submitted that as per the instructions of the Cent Cash Debit Cards it was intimated to the Complainant  while issuing ATM Card which is as under:-
4. : You must not disclose the PIN to any person. You will be solely responsible for maintaining secrecy of your PIN. The bank does not assume responsibility on this behalf

Bank’s Liability: You are solely responsible for maintaining secrecy of the PIN and shall ensure that that the same is not disclosed to any person either voluntarily, accidentally or by mistake. The bank does not assume responsibility on your behalf. In case of difficulty, please contact ATM Department or where you maintain primary account.

4. Further it is submitted that as per the transaction details provided by the ATM Department Central Office Mumbai the ATM Card of the Complainant has been used for a POS successful transaction for a sum of Rs. 58,117/- on 11.10.18 and the transaction in question is successful which proves that the complaint must have disclosed/shared the ATM Pin or successful transaction, thus the Complainant  has herself committed mistake on her own part and she failed to follow the instructions of the ATM Debit Card issued by Central Office of the Opposite Party bank.
5. It is submitted that no cause of action has been arisen in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Parties as the transaction in question is successful as the Complainant has herself disclosed/shared the PIN no. to the unknown person called her on her registered mobile number i.e. 9990527249 in the bank’s record, and the said POS transaction done in account of the Complainant is reflecting in the statement of account of the account of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

8. In order to prove its case Opposite Parties has filed affidavit of Shri Irshad Ahmed Khan, Senior Manager and AR of Opposite Parties, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that she was having a Saving bank account with Opposite Party with ATM card facility but she never made any use of that card. The Complainant stated that on 11.10.18 an amount of Rs. 58,117/- is deducted/withdrawn from her account by way of various transactions mentioned as “POS ATM PU” without any intimation to her. The Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 and requested to return the deducted amount but officials of Opposite Party did not pay any heed to her request. The Complainant also lodged police complaint at Seelampur, Delhi regarding the said deduction from her account.
10. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the POS transaction was successful and on 11.10.18 Complainant visited branch manager of Opposite Party bank with a request to block the card and the card was blocked on the same date and  she also disclosed the fact that she had disclosed the PIN no. to the culprits/unknown person who had called her for taking PIN no. on the pretext that he is calling from the bank and while issuing the ATM card Complainant was intimated that she must not disclose her pin to any person for maintaining secrecy of her PIN. Complainant has committed mistake and failed to follow the terms and conditions of the debit ATM card.
11. The allegations of the Complainant against the Opposite Party are that Opposite Party illegally deducted the amount from her account. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. R. Chandramohan reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 251, the relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
11. ”12The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act. The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts. There could not be any presumption with regard to the willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, as contemplated in Section 2(1) (g) of the Act. The burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it.”                                                                                 
12.  As Complainant had received messages on her registered mobile phone about one time password for each transaction, which she herself filed along with her evidence and card no. and PIN no. are known to her only, so she failed to maintain the secrecy of her PIN as mentioned in ATM card terms and conditions. In our considered view and the judgment mentioned above, in the present case there is no deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Party. Thus we do not find any merit in the complaint therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
13. Order announced on 25.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President