Delhi

North East

CC/129/2021

Shri Chahat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

22 Nov 2024

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. 129/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Chahat Ram S/o Lt. Sh. Ghamandi Mahashay R/o H.No. 77/2, Village Biharipur, Karawal Nagar Road, North East, Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.           3.	Union Bank of India Through Branch Manager Sherpur Chowk, Karawal Nagar Road, Sherpur, Delhi 110094   Union Bank of India Through DGM Union Bank Bhawan 239 Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021   M/s Bharti Sahakari Bank Ltd. Pune  A 4, Rohtak Road, HW 10, New Delhi	Opposite Parties

 

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

23.09.21 30.08.24 22.11.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that the Complainant is having a saving account bearing no. 645802010003533 with the branch and Opposite Party No.1 issued the debit cum ATM card bearing no. 4346586458003103 to the Complainant. On the intervening night of 22.07.21 and 23.07.21 the Complainant received an SMS on his registered mobile no. for an amount of Rs. 50,141.60/-. The Complainant was shocked as he neither withdrew the said amount nor shared the password and the debit cum ATM card was still in the safe custody of the Complainant.  The Complainant immediately called the customer care number of bank but he could not connect with them as the server was busy. At that time, the Complainant was travelling to greater Noida to meet his daughter.  The Complainant again called the customer care of the bank and blocked his debit cum ATM card. On 23.07.21 the Complainant had also filed an E-Police complaint at E-Police Station Khajuri Khas, North East, Delhi which was later on registered an E-FIR bearing no. NED-KK-000794. On 26.06.21 (24.07.21 and 25.07.21 was a public holiday due to forth Saturday and Sunday) the Complainant went to the Opposite Party No.1 bank to inform the fraud committed to with him  but the officials of the Opposite Party No.1 did not entertain his compliant and asked to come tomorrow. On 27.07.21 Complainant again informed the Opposite Party No.1 regarding the fraud committed to him which was duly hacknowledged by the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant had issued a legal notice dated 05.08.21 to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 which was duly served to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 but the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 instead of making the payment to Complainant, had issued the vague reply dated 17.08.21. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 50,141.60/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of accrual i.e. 22.07.21 till the date of payment. He further prayed for Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 55,000/- towards litigation cost.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1 (Union Bank of India)

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. While admitting that alleged debit entries were made in the account of Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 contends that all the transactions were duly communicated to the Complainant through SMS to his registered mobile number. Opposite Party No.1 further contends that Opposite Party No.1 also contends that as per the policy of reserve Bank of India, the Complainant was supposed to approach the bank within three days which he fails to do the needful in the said span of time. Admittedly the Complainant just after the expiry of three days maliciously approached the Opposite Party bank only on 27.07.21 with a complaint dated 27.07.21 stating their in some unknown person withdrew money from his account in fraudulent manner by using ATM/Debit card at 05:33 PM on 21.07.21. The Opposite Party bank immediately reported the matter to competent authority who called the Complainant for personal hearing where the Complainant narrated the fact of fraud committed with him on 23.07.21 instaed of 21.07.21. Further the Opposite Party bank requested M/s. Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd. Pune, A 4, Rohtak Road, HW 10, New Delhi three times regarding video footage from 21.07.21 till 23.07.21 but avail. Hence, M/s Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd. Pune, A 4, Rohtak Road, HW 10, New Delhi is the proper and necessary part in the present proceedings for efficacious disposal of present complaint. Further after concluding the personal hearing the competent authority reported the matter to TRFSC (fraud monitoring cell). The TRFSC committee vide its observation dated 16.11.21 rejected the claim of the Complainant after observing that it was not technology related fraud, transactions on account of no CPP identified and insufficient proof to establish Complainant was not at the place of transaction. Hence, no deficiency has been there on their part.

Case of the Opposite Party No.3 (Bharti Vidya Peeth/Bharti Sahakari Bank Ltd.)

3. The Opposite Party No.3 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.3 submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 follows the set guide line of the RBI such as ATM Machine fitted with CCTV cameras and anti-scanning devices, ATM Machine with 24 ×7 recording which has saving mode for 1 month and maximum 3 months. Apart from that, Rear view mirror is installed on ATM Machine so that it will be known whether someone standing behind it is watching the PIN and ATM Machine has card data protection system and 24 hours security guard is deployed. It is also submitted that the ATM Machine of Opposite Party No.3 is installed at the premises of the Bharti Vidya Peeth/Bharti Sahakari Bank Ltd. /Opposite Party No.3 and 24/7 three or four security persons secured the ATM machine so the possibility of illegal activities / fraud and such type act not possible in ATM machine. Opposite Party No.3 specifically submitted that that the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 never demand any video footage from 21.07.21 till 23.07.21 and till today Opposite Party No.1 and 2 has not made any such demand from the Opposite Party No.3 as alleged in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1.

Rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties

4. 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

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Naferia, Branch Manager of Opposite Party No.1 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 has been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have perused the file including the written arguments filed by the parties.
8. It is the case of the Complainant that on the intervening night of 22.07.21 and 23.07.21, unauthorised withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 50,141.60/- by some unknown person in fraudulent manner through his ATM card while the card was in his custody and he never shared password with anyone. Upon receiving the SMS for debit, he blocked the card on 23.07.2021. The grievance of the Complainant is that despite several demands, the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 has not made the payment of the said amount Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. 
9. On the other hand, Opposite Party No. 1, contends that all the transactions were duly communicated to the Complainant through SMS to his registered mobile number and as per the policy of reserve Bank of India, the Complainant was supposed to approach the bank within three days which he failed to do the needful in the said span of time. Upon receiving the complaint, the matter was referred to TRFSC (fraud monitoring cell). The said committed vide its observation dated 16.11.21 rejected the claim of the Complainant after observing that it was not technology related fraud, transactions on account of no CPP identified and insufficient proof to establish Complainant was not at the place of transaction. Hence, no deficiency has been there on their part.
10. It is undisputed fact the alleged debit entries were made through ATM and Complainant also received SMS in that regards on his registered mobile number. It is also an admitted fact that the said card was blocked by the on 23.07.2023. Opposite Party No.1 has taken stand that since, as per the policy of reserve Bank of India, the Complainant was supposed to approach the bank within three days which he failed to do the needful in the said span of time. It is also the case of the Opposite Party bank that alleged transaction was made through the ATM of Opposite Party 3 and despite demand, Opposite Party     No.3 did not provide CCTV footage to them. Opposite Party No.1 further contends that they immediately referred the matter to the competent authority TRFSC which rejected the claim of the Complainant.
11. Perusal of material on record shows that Investigation report of digital transaction fraud issued by the Opposite Party bank clearly mentions in column no. 15 and 16 that matter was reported to the branch on 23.07.2021 and he got his card blocked. It is also confirmed in column 24 of the investigation report by the Opposite Party bank that the subject card was in physical possession of the Complainant and the genuineness of card in possession was also confirmed. The matter was further recommended to TRFC (fraud monitoring cell). The Opposite Party No.1 has relied upon the TRFSC report. The perusal of said document shows that as per bank’s policy, customer has reported the matter within three working days, is hence eligible for 100% compensation. However, Complainant had not visited the branch, hence, physical verification and destruction of card was not done by the branch. The said observation is in clear contradiction of the observations made in the investigation report and stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 in their reply.
12. It is further noted in the TRFSC report that as per the digital footprints details, attempts were observed even after the blocking of the card. The matter was referred by TRFSC to the internal ombudsman for further response.
13. The stand of Opposite Party No.3 is that they were following set RBI guidelines for security and Opposite Party No.1 never demanded any CCTV footage. Opposite Party No.1 has not rebutted the said stand, hence, same is rejected.
14.  In the light of above discussion, we note that it is established that the Complainant had reported the matter within three working days as is confirmed by the TRFSC report relied upon by Opposite Party No.1 itself which makes him eligible for 100% refund. Apart from that, Opposite Party No.1 has taken contradictory stand regarding physical verification of the card. Not only this, Opposite Party No.1 has not led any cogent evidence rebutting the stand of opposite Party No.3 that they were not asked the CCTV footage by Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 has failed to settle the matter of the Complainant and has been careless throughout while handing the matter.
15.  Hence, in view of above facts and discussion, we find Opposite Party No.1 liable for deficiency in services towards the Complainant not settling the genuine claim of the Complainant.
16.  Thus the present complaint is allowed and Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Union Bank of India is directed to refund to the Complainant the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards disputed transaction amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 35,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
17. Order announced on 22.11.24.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President