This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that complainant holds a Savings Bank Account No.0672010102947 in United Bank of India  of 25A, Muktaram Babu Street Branch, Kolkata – 700 007, the OP of this case for about 20 years.

          On 15-09-2011 complainant issued a self cheque being No.338376 of United Bank of India and when the said chedque was presented in Bank for encashment it was not encashed without any satisfactory reason.  The complainant later when contacted the Manager over phone she was told that her account has been freezed.  The complainant on 26-09-2011 sent an Advocate notice to the Manager, UBI of the OP1 Bank stating, inter alia, about the reason for freezing of the account and requested the OP1 to activate her account within seven days from the date of receipt of her notice, failing which complainant will initiate departmental proceedings against OP1.

          Complainant received a letter on 20-10-2011 wherefrom complainant learnt against her S.B. A/c. No.0672010102947 with them and on application of complainant dated 26-03-2009 for issuance of a debit card, a debit card bearing No.4213190672000209 was issued to her.  As it is evident from the register from the OP1 and it was also stated in the alleged letter that complainant took delivery of the said debit card on 02-04-2009. 

          Further OP1 by their letter dated 20-10-2011 also admitted that debit card bearing no.0672250021526 issued to the complainant was earlier issued to M/s. Granco Process and before issuance of the same to the complainant it was not blocked.

          Further OP1 admitted in their letter dated 20-06-2012 that a Debit Card No.42131906720000191 was issued and delivered to the holder of C.C. A/c. at their branch and further stated that two debit cards bearing no.4213190672000209 and 4213190672000101 remained issued in the C.C. A/c. No.0672250021526 out of which the Card No.4213190672000209 was physically delivered to complainant on 02-04-2009 and it was remained in the custody of the complainant.  Moreover, OP1 stated in their alleged letter to the complainant that C.C. A/c. holder vide his letter dated 22-09-2011 addressed to the branch had informed that regarding unauthorized ATM withdrawal of Rs.1,40,520/-from their account  during May, 2009 to September, 2011 was done so, upon receipt of the said letter from said C.C. A/c. holder OP1 freezed the account of the complainant but complainant allegation is that complainant never withdrew such amount through her debit card.  Moreover the alleged debit card issued to complainant was earlier issued to M/s. Granco Process which was not blocked and issued to the complainant.  Whereas the complainant at the time of issuance of Debit Card had only Rs.94,245-25 in her account, but the OP alleged that complainant had withdrawn Rs.1,40,520/- i.e. excess amount of Rs.46,275-45.

          It is further alleged that OP1 threatened the complainant that if she would not pay Rs.1,40,520/- within three days from the date of receipt of their letter they would adjust the amount lying as well as the subsequent credits received, if any, from her account being S.B. A/c. No.0672010102947 towards the said amount of Rs.1,40,520/- and to take such necessary legal steps for recovery of the balance amount and OP1 further reminded to the complainant that no debit transaction would be allowed on her aforesaid account till realization of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,40,250/-

          The complainant being the professor has been facing mental trauma for the said letter of OP1 and she was not in a position to conduct her duties.  Moreover, she was facing huge physical and financial loss since then.

          Subsequently on 27-10-2011 complainant sent a letter through his Advocate to the OP that whenever she sent bearer cheque the Branch Manager refuses to clear it and told the ground orally that there was no fund in her account.  The complainant also reminded OP1 that she had got response regarding her previous letters and requested the Branch Manager of the Bank to release her said amount.

          Subsequently, complainant on 28-11-2011 received a letter from the OP1 on 20-10-2011 and by that letter complainant responded on 31-10-2011 stating therein, inter alia, that complainant never gave any application for issuance of Debit Card and she had never used the same.  The complainant therein categorically reminded OP1 that he was neither authorized nor empowered to adjust any amount withdrawn by someone else from complainant’s saving account no.0672010102947 as threatened by OP1 in their letter dated 20-10-2011.  The complainant, thereafter, asked to OP1 to withdraw the said letter forthwith and complainant had suffered mental agony, trauma and also was defamed so she reserved her right to claim damages from OP1 through appropriate court of law and practically OP1is responsible for all such consequences and, as such, complainant has prayed for payment of entire amount releasing of the said amount along with 18% interest for deficient and negligent manner of service of the OP because complainant never withdrew any amount by using ATM Debit Card so question of intimation to the OP does not arise and allegation as made by the OP is false and fabricated and it is beyond imagination.  The OP1 caused harm and damages to the reputation of the complainant filed this case for relief.

          On the other hand, OP1 by filing written statement (on 25-04-2013) submitted that complainant has admitted about his S.B. A/c. 0672010102947 with Mukta Ram Babu Street Branch, P.S. Jorasanko, Kolkata – 700 007, Branch of UBI and against that account complainant applied for a debit card on 27-03-2009 on the basis of the application one ATM card was issued to the complainant being No.4213190672000209 and the complainant personally took delivery of the ATM Card by putting her signature and also in her application and on the same date one ATM card being No.4213190672000191 was issued in favour of another account holder of the OP Bank i.e. Granco Process having Account No.0672250021526.  It is specifically stated by the OP that Granco Process by a letter dated 22-09-2011 informed the OP Bank that between 18-05-2009 and 12-05-2011 a total amount of Rs.1,40,520/- was withdrawn from the account of Granco Process through Granco Process never withdraw the said sum during such period either through cheque or ATM Card supplied by the OP Bank to Granco Process and on receipt of such information OP Bank investigated the same and came to know that the said sum was withdrawn by the complainant through ATM Card No.4213190672000209 during the same period which was debited by the system to the account of Granco Process due to certain technical error.  The online financial transaction of withdrawal amounts are also submitted.

          It is further alleged that the complainant had full knowledge that the complainant had only a sum of Rs.94,000/- in her account and the complainant had no arrangement with the OP Bank for overdrawing facility yet the complainant withdrew the sum of Rs.1,40,520/- and the amount of Rs.94,000/- kept in the account of the complainant remain intact.  It simply proves that complainant was fully aware that complainant was withdrawing the money from the OP Bank but the complainant never disclosed the fact that he was actually withdrawing amount from M/s. Granco Process’s account so the OP Bank demanded the said sum from the complainant on several occasions but the complainant did not pay any heed to it and in spite of that complainant filed this case  for mala fide intention and for illegal gain.  So, the entire complaint is false and the present complaint should be dismissed and also submitted that entire allegation of the complainant is false and fabricated so the claim should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On an indepth study of the complaint and written version and also relying upon the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer’s and the parties including the complainant’s husband it is found that Mira Ambasta (Sinha) having date of birth 01-04-1947 having S.B. A/c. No.2947(last four digits) applied for ATM cum Visa Debit Card on 27-03-2009 and it was filled up by her and from Delivery Register of the OP Bank it is clear that said Mira Ambasta (Sinha) received the debit card with last three digit 209 on 27-03-2009.

          After considering the document of the OP Bank and also from the letter of Granco Process to the UBI Muktaram Babu Street Branch dated 22-09-2011 it is found that Granco Process used to hold that card which was allowed to the complainant with last three digits 209 and it is also proved that on the very date i.e. on 27-03-2009 Granco Process also received one debit card ending with three digits 191 from the OP Bank.  Surrendering the previous card No. ending with 209 which was allowed to the complainant and from that letter of Granco Process on 22-09-2011 which was found from the account of Granco Process bearing account No.0672250021526 a sum of Rs.1,40,520/- was shown debited from their account through ATM but it was the allegation of the Granco Process that no such debit was made by them not even by their card ending with three digit no.191 and Granco Process claimed that it was unauthorized debit made from their account by some other person and prayed for refund of the same and Granco Process gave a list of unauthorized debit from 18-05-2009 to 123-09-2011 showing the amount and date and total amount was Rs.1,40,520/-. Granco Process also submitted united view of account (online financial transaction interface) wherefrom it is found that on several dates debit card was used and amount was debited and fact remains in all those cases card no. is ending with 209 was issued and that matter has not been denied by the complainant.  But truth is that Granco Process already surrenderred the card bearing number with last three digits 209 on 27-03-2009 and received another fresh card ending with three digits 191 and complainant received the present Debit Card which is in the custody of the complainant till now ending with no.209.  The said card ending with three digits 209 is still lying in the custody of the complainant and complainant has not denied it.  Fact remains OP has searched out after getting the application from Granco Process that Granco Process already surrendered the debit card ending with three digit number 209 prior to 27-03-2009 and that debit card was allotted to the complainant on 27-03-2009 and complainant received it but it was not locked for which as and when their debit card has been used by the complainant and their family members amount was debited from the account of Granco Process and when Granco Process detected it and reported the matter to the Bank thereafter Bank after investigation came to learn that as because the debit card ending with no.209 which is being held by the complainant but the same was not locked after surrendering of the same by the Granco Process to the Bank Authority prior to 27-03-2009 and for which as and when the debit card was used by the complainant and their family members it was debited from the account of Granco Process and fact remains that debit card ending with three digit no.209 which is in the custody of the complainant since 27-03-2009 had been used no doubt because unified view of accounts on online financial transaction interface reveals that card number ending with 209 was used always and money was debited within the period from 18-05-2009 to 12-09-2011 and fact remains by using that card a sum of Rs.1,40,520/- was withdrawn but that was debited from the account of M/s. Granco Process on the ground of before issuance of debit card to the complainant on 27-03-2009 it was not locked for which as and when complainant and her family members used the said debit card that amount was debited from the account of Granco Process but admitted fact is that Granco Process got a fresh debit card on 27-03-2009 being last three digit no.191 but from the unified view of the account that (online financial transaction interface) reveals that said debit card was not used by the Granco Process but debit card of the complainant and family members are using the debit card so it is debited from the account of Granco Process.

          No doubt after considering the entire fact we are convinced that there was fault on the part of the banking authority not to lock the account of the Granco Process before the delivery of the said debit card ending with 209 to the complainant for which as and when it has been used, the amount was debited from the account of Granco Process in place of complainant’s account that this present debit card ending with 209 was allotted to the complainant and in all cases the said debit card debited the amount from the account of  the Granco Process for use of this card by the complainant is always found.

          It is also proved from other documents that from complainant’s account no amount was debited for the use of her said debit card and so up to 05-09-2011 total balance amount in the said account of the complainant is or was Rs.94.245-25.  But after considering the account statement for the period from 24-03-2009 to 31-12-2011 it is found that from the account of the Granco Process said amount was withdrawn one after another.  Then question is whether complainant is very fair in her expression or not and in this regard we have gone through all documents produced by the complainant and OP and we have gathered that complainant has tried to prove that she never used the card because against her account no debit has been made by the Bank then how bank can claim such an amount of Rs.1,40,520/- and why his bank account can be freezed.

          No doubt after thorough study and evaluation of the documents we are confirmed that on 27-03-2009 complainant got debit card No.4213190672000209 and still it is in the custody of the complainant and it is proved that on 27-03-2009 M/s. Granco Process received the fresh debit card bearing no.4213190672000191 but fact remains the complainant’s card was previously hold by Granco Process and Granco Process surrendered it but due to callousness on the part of the Banking Authority the account of the Granco Process against that debit card was not locked for which as and when the present complainant’s debit card ending with 209 was used the amount was debited from the account of Granco Process and taking such scope the complainant appearing before this Forum tried to convince that if actually the said account has been used by her in that case the amount ought to have been debited from her account and when no amount was debited against the present debit card, the OP’s claim is false and fabricated but truth is that complainant’s debit card ending with 209 had been used by the complainant and her family members on several occasions which is evident from the copy of the unified view of account (online financial transaction interface) but as because the Granco Process account was not locked at the time of surrendering the present debit card to the Bank in all cases of transactions the amount was debited from the Granco Process account and getting such chance the complainant and their family members managed to prepare this complaint and filed this complaint before this Forum but truth is that in the account of Granco Process huge amount was there for which complainant and her family members managed to withdraw it knowing fully well and having the knowledge that they are withdrawing money from another account suppressing all facts so we are convinced that there is fault on the part of the OP because OP failed to locked the transaction with the account of the Granco Process and the complainant’s debit card for which complainant has got such chance to make allegation after allegation against the OPs and getting such scope complainant has tried to say that OP has harassed her but truth is that complainant used that card for herself and the family members on several occasions and amount has been debited from the Granco Process account so invariably when that matter was detected departmental proceeding was started, some of the staffs of the banks were  suspended but for that reason complainant shall not get any benefit to get the entire amount of Rs.94,245-25 which is still now shown in her account but truth is that complainant and his family members managed to withdraw the amount knowing fully about debit transaction that it is being withdrawn from another accounts so they used it without any barrier and further withdrawal may be done by the complainant and their family members if the matter shall not be detected by M/s. Granco Process and truth is that when Granco Process reported the matter on 22-09-2011 to the Bank, thereafter, bank searched out that there was fault on their part for not locking transaction in between the complainant’s debit card and the Granco Process account and that was the fault for which complainant enjoyed huge amount by using the debit card and so invariably bank has its legal authority to seize balance amount of Rs.46,294-75 from the complainant and also to adjust the entire amount of Rs.94,245-25 which is in the account of complainant (A/c. No.0672010102947).

          OP rightly freezed the account of the complainant because on the ground the OP reported the matter in writing to the complainant but complainant did not respond rather challenged that complainant did not use the debit card but after giving proper attention to the entire materials on record and after thorough assessment of the materials on record we are confirmed that the complainant’s entire claim is false and fabricated and the cheque which was sent for encashment was rightly refused and no doubt the complainant and her family members used the debit card but their account was not anyway hampered but for the complainant’s use of the said debit card the account of the third party M/s. Granco Process was hampered and total amount was invariably debited from Granco Process account a sum of Rs.1,40,520/- because that amount was debited by using the complainant’s debit card which was  not locked at the time of handing over the said debit card to the complainant by the Bank Authority and that is the fault on the part of the OP Bank.  But for fault of the OP Bank complainant has not suffered rather complainant enjoyed the debit card knowing fully well that their transactions are not deducting any money from the complainant’s account and for which complainant has not been anyway harassed by the Bank rather for the fault of the Bank complainant she used the debit card and when the matter was reported to the complainant by the OP on the basis of the allegation of M/s. Granco Process they stopped bank account of the complainant and freezed it that is the correct procedure on the part of the Bank.  In the above circumstances, no doubt complainant is not entitled to get any relief but for the laches of the OP practically complainant has managed to enjoy others account by using her debit card for which no further relief can be granted to the complainant.

          In the result, complaint fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.