PER: SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W):
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission prayed following reliefs –
- Direct the opposite party to pay the value of the service of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh forty Thousand only) to the Complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. till the actual date of payment;
- Direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant;
- Direct the opposite party to pay Rs.7430/- towards expenses incurred by the complainant during these periods for redress the grievance;
- Direct the opposite party to pay ligation cost of Rs.15,000/-; and
- And such other and further relief as the respected Forum deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the proceedings.
2. The complainant is the account holder of OP bearing account no.:10546180612/CIF no.:80428047595. In the said account, the complainant deposits the EPF benefits. To get all information regarding transaction from the said OP bank, the mobile no.:9938454933 of the complainant was registered with the bank. On 07.01.2019, the complainant made a oral complaint to the op regarding non-receipt of messages in his said registered mobile number. But the Op did not take any curative steps to remove deficient services as non delivery of SMS in the regd. Mobile number of the complainant. on 08.02.2019, the complainant withdrawal an amount of Rs.1000/-from his account mentioned above by using ATM card but he did not get any message from the bank in his mobile number. On 27.02.219 again the complainant lodged another complaint with OP orally regarding non-receipt of the message in the registered mobile number. As per advice of OP bank staff, the complainant changed his old mobile number: 99384-54933 with new mobile no:87633-07888. On the same day, the complainant received messages from 11.02.219 to 27.02.2019 about debit of amounting of Rs.1,40,000/- from his account no.:10546180612. As per instruction of the OP, the complainant lodges an FIR with Cyber Police Station, Berhampur on 27.02.2019. On 01.03.2019, the complainant filed a complaint with OP regarding non-delivery of messages in first registered mobile no.:99384-54933. The OP acknowledged the same. On 28.3.2019 the complainant lodge an FIR at Digapahandi Police Station which was registered as SDE No.:489/Dtd:28.03.2019. When getting no results from the Op, the complainant lodge a complaint with Banking Ombudsman on 08.03.2019 and the OP has refunded only of Rs.20,000/- out of Rs.140000/- as per instruction of Banking Ombudsman on 24.06.2019. The complainant alleged that, the opposite party failed to keep the money in save custody in Account No.:10546180612 and also no re-credited the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the account of the complainant when debited unauthorisedly. Being aggrieved for such deficiency in services, the complainant filed the complaint and sought relief as prayed for.
3. The Commission admitted the case on the point of admissibility of the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party.
4. Duly acknowledging the notice, the OP appeared and filed its counter version through his Advocate. The OP answering to the complaint submitted that, the complainant is their customer and as per RBI guidelines, the mobile number was registered with the OP. subsequently, the OP changed the mobile number as per request of the complainant. The complainant was also provided with ATM by the OP with specific instruction not to share PIN number or ATM card number with anybody even not to disclose the relevant information with the bank staff. The Op also admitted in their counter that if ATM fulfills the required fields, the bank can deviate the money. It is submitted, the amount from the complainant’s account was withdraw at Deoghar through ATM from 11.02.2019 to 27.02.2019. Hence, the complainant misutilised his Atm card. When complaint received regarding the change of mobile number from the complainant, the OP immediately taken appropriate steps and changed the mobile number within permissible day. So there is no fault from the side of the bank. As regarding the failure of delivery of messages in old mobile number, the op stated that, due to failure of link to the mobile programme and net system. The OP refunded the amount which was transacted after change of new mobile number as per instruction of ombudsman.
On the date of hearing, the Advocate for the Complainant was present whereas the op found absent on repeated calls and no steps filed also.
The commission perused the complaint, written version, evidences and documents available in the case record minutely. When the op bank did not take any interest to redress the grievance, the Complainant in constraint lodge FIR at Cyber Police Station on 27.02.2019 and Digapahandi Police Station and which was registered as SDE No.:489/28.03.2019 and also at Banking Ombudsman on 08.03.2019. further, the bank also charged consideration amount from the complainant every year for SMS to the registered mobile number with the bank account of the customer.
The Commission referred to the Reserve Bank of India's 'Circular No.RBI/2017-18/15 DBR. No. Leg. BC.78/09.07.005/ 2017-18', dated 06/07/2017, titled “Customer Protection – Limiting liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions.” In view of the above circular (supra) the Bank could not prove any negligence on the Complainant's part and bank ought to reverse unauthorized transactions if informed within 3 days. In the instant case, the unauthorized transaction was carried out on 27.02.219 while the complainant was present inside the premises of the OP bank and he informed immediately on the same day when he came to know about the unauthorized withdrawals of Rs.140000/- made in his account since 11.02.2019 to 27.02.2019. It was possible when the OP bank changed the mobile number with first bank registered mobile number. Further, it is pertinent to mentioned here that, every day an amount of Rs.20000/- was unauthorisedly debited/withdrawn from the account of the complainant by using ATM centre at Deoghar which is situated at Jharkhand state. The Law is well settled by the National Commission in Bhadra N. Dalal v. Bank of India reported in [2012] CJ 177 (N.C) that, Fradulent withdrawal from ATM- Even though there is rule which prohibits withdrawal of more than Rs.15000/- on any particular day from ATM, this limit was exceeded in present case – petitioner was quite vigilant in bringing whole matter to notice of Bank immediately and also lodging FIR-Bank directed to reimburse the amount alongwith interest. Hence, the National Commission held in the above case that, “Bank is responsible for any fraudulent withdrawal from ATM”.
In view of the ratio decidendi in Bhadra (Supra), the Commission allowed the complaint against the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest @ 9% pa to the complainant from the date of debit of the amount i.e., 11.02.2019 till actual date of payment together with litigation cost of Rs.7000/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. In the event of non-compliance of the order, the Complainant is at liberty to recover the entire dues which shall carry 12% pa from the date of order till actual date of payment from the opposite party in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 27.02.2024.
