West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/44/2016

Biswajit Mondal, S/O Paresh Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Suri Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Monalisa bandopadhyay

22 Nov 2017

ORDER

The case of the complainant Biswajit Mondal, in brief, is that he is a current account holder of O.P Axis Bank, Suri Branch being C.A No. 915020030987558 and Customer No. 858173997.

            It is the further case of the complainant that as per account statement on 21.01.2016 and 28.01.2016 he has withdrawn Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 8000/- respectively through ATM but the petitioner did not withdraw the same. 

It is the further case of the complainant that after the said incident he went to the Bank and verbally informed the matter to the Br. Manager and requested him to enquire the same and even he sent an e.mail on 25.02.2016 to the Nodal Officer, Axis Bank. The Branch Manager told him to come few days later and he must look after the matter but did nothing. Lastly on 07.03.2016 the complainant went to the Suri P.S. and lodged G.D being No. Suri PS GDE No. 415 dated 07.03.2016.

It is the further case of the complainant that on 07.03.16 he again requested to the Br. Manager to enquire the matter by filing written application and for temporary closing his bank account till the disposal of the enquiry of the dispute.

It is the next case of the complainant that every account is under the monitoring of the CC Cameras which helps easily to ascertain the identity of the person who withdraw the amount from Video Footage.  But till today the Bank did not take any step as per prayer of the petitioner though he went to the Bank on several times.

Hence this case for directing the O.P Bank for making payment of Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 8000/- which are withdrawn on 21.01.16 and 28.01.16 due to wrong transaction and payment of compensation of Rs. 1000/- for harassment.

In the present case the O.P Axis Bank has appeared and filed written version but thereafter backed out from the case and ultimately the case was heard ex parte against the O.P Bank.

 

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Biswajit Mondal has been examined as PW1 and filed some documents.

Heard arguments of Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant.

Point No.1:- Evidently the complainant has a current account with the O.P Axis Bank.

            So, the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:- O.P Band has Branch Office within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 10500/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to

each other.

The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that he is a current account holder of O.P Axis Bank, Suri Branch being C.A No. 915020030987558 and Customer No. 858173997.

He further stated that as per account statement on 21.01.2016 and 28.01.2016 he has withdrawn Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 8000/- respectively through ATM but the petitioner did not withdraw the same. 

He stated that he informed the O.P Bank verbally and lastly on 25.02.16 sent an e.mail to the Nodal Officer, Axis Bank. He also filed a written application before the Bank on 07.03.16 and lodged GD before P.S on 07.03.16.

According to complainant he informed the O.P Bank verbally but there is nothing to show that he informed the Bank immediate after the incident.

Copy of the e.mail, G.D and written application show that he informed bank and police on 25.02.16 and 07.03.16.

So, it is clear that though according to him his money was illegally wirthdrwan from his account on 21.01.16 and 28.01.16 through ATM but he informed the O.P Bank and Police on 07.03.16 in writing for first time though he informed Nodal Officer on 25.02.16 i.e. long after the incident.

From the statement of the account of the complainant we find that he withdrawn money through

 

ATM in this way.

Date                                        Amount

05.01.2016                              Rs. 10000/-

10.01.2016                              Rs. 2000/-

21.01.2016                              Rs. 1500/-

22.01.2016                              Rs. 7000/-

23.01.2016                              Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 10000/-

25.01.2016                              Rs. 8000/- and Rs 10000/-

28.01.2016                              Rs. 8000/-, Rs. 10000/- and Rs 4000/-

29.01.2016                              Rs. 7000/-

30.01.2016                              Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 22000/-

So, it is clear that out of said 14 transactions through ATM made in the month of January 2016 he is alleging wrong/illegal withdrawn of money in respect of only two transaction i.e. transaction date 21.01.2016 Rs. 1500/- and transaction dated 28.01.2016 Rs. 8000/-.

We find that it is very peculiar that on 28.01.2016 he was withdraw money through ATM by 3 transactions, 1^st transaction is disputes transaction of Rs. 8000/- through ATM of Axis Bank. 2^nd transaction is of Rs. 10000/- through ATM of SBI and 3^rd transaction is of Rs. 4000/- through ATM of Axis Bank. But out of said three transactions he is not challenging transaction of Rs. 10000/- and Rs. 4000/- and only challenging transaction Rs. 8000/-.

During hearing of the argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant has given much reliance upon non-production of CC TV footage by the O.P Bank.

In the present case it is not also the case of the complainant that ATM and PIN were not in custody of the complainant.

We find that in Revision Petition No. 3182/2008 in a similar case of withdrawn of money through ATM Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that we are not convinced by the reasoning of either the Dist. Forum or the State Commission, particularly, in view of the fact that merely because the CC TV was not working on those dates and its footage was thus not available, does not mean that the money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using the ATM Card and the PIN No. In case the ATM card had been stolen or the PIN No. had become known to person other than ATM Card holder then the CC TV coverage could help the identifying the person who had fraudulently use the card. In the instant case it is not disputed that the ATM card or PIN remain in the self-custody/knowledge of the respondent. In view of elaborate procedure evolved by the petitioner Bank to insure that without the ATM Card and knowledge of the PIN No. it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by any unauthorized person from an ATM, we find too difficult to accept the respondent’s contention. No doubt there have been cases of fraudulent withdrawal as stated by the State Commission. But the circumstances of those cases may not be same as in this case and in all probability, these fraudulent withdrawals occur either because the ATM Card or PIN No. fell in wrong hands.

Considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record and relying upon the ruling passed by the Hon’ble National Commission we are constrained to hold that the complainant failed to prove the case and the case is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly both points are decided against the complainant. Case be dismissed.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 44/2016 be and the same is dismissed on ex parte  against the O.P without any order as to cost.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.