| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 309 of 14-11-2018 Decided on : 29-11-2021 Anjna aged 34 years, D/o Bihari Lal R/o Subhash Gali, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda now W/o Inderjit Singh R/o 49, Sector 2, Extension Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, through her power of attorney holder and father Sh. Bihari Lal R/o Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its Zonal Manager. State Bank of India, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda Branch, through its Branch Manager
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Raman Roy Khattar, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Amandeep Singh Grewal, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Anjna (here-in-after referred to as omplainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against State Bank of India and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, stated the case of the complainant is that she is married at Jammu as such she is unable to appear before this Commission. She has authorized her father Bihari Lal as her power of attorney holder and the complaint is being filed through her power of attorney Bihari Lal. It is alleged that the complainant is having saving bank account bearing No.10002665685 with State Bank of Patiala, The Mall, Bathinda Branch and now the said bank emerged in State Bank of India i.e. opposite parties. The complainant is also having ATM card bearing No. 6038455068600005285 against her above said account. When the complainant was residing at Bathinda, in the morning of 16.02.2018, she received text message of Bank that a sum of Rs.40,000/- twice were withdrawn from her account in the intervening night of 09/10.02.2018. She immediately changed PIN of her ATM Card and also blocked the same. On 10.02.2018 and 11.02.2018 being holidays as second Saturday and Sunday, the complainant informed the opposite party on 12.02.2018 through her application which was received by the opposite parties. The complainant moved another application dated 14.02.2018 at the instance of opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite party asked the complainant to give declaration-cum-complaint form on a prescribed performa of opposite parties and as such she also submitted the said declaration-cum-complaint to the opposite parties on 23.02.2018. The opposite parties assured the complainant that the claim of complainant will be settled within few days. Thereafter the opposite parties also supplied Annexure A-2 prescribed performa to the complainant for submission and she also submitted that Form on 27.02.2018. The opposite parties issued letter No.60 dated 07.04.2018 to the complainant to submit the copy of FIR. The complainant moved an application dated 09.04.2018 to S.S.P., Bathinda and also submitted copy of said application to the opposite parties. The complainant also surrendered her ATM Card thorugh her brother Sunny Dadwal on 09.04.2018 with the opposite parties. It is also alleged that the opposite parties have not settled the claim of the complainant till date rather they are postponing the lawful claim of the complainant on one pretext or the other. The opposite parties had also provided CC footage of their ATM Cabin which shows that one person with muffled face and wearing helmet entered in the ATM cabin and there was no security guard at the time of incident. This shows negligence on the part of opposite parties. Due to the non settlement and making payment of above said amount of Rs.80,000/-, the opposite parties have caused mental, agony, pains and sufferings to the complainant. The complainant got served legal notice upon the opposite parties in this regard, but to no effect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay the said amount of Rs. 80,000/- alongwith upto date interest@ 18% P.A. and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation besides litigation costs to the extent of Rs.11,000/-. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action ; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own act and conduct, admissions, omissions, acquiescence and waiver and that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. On merits, the opposite parties have pleaded that the complaint has not been filed by the complainant through an authorized and competent person and the father of the complainant has no personal knowledge about the facts of the present case. It is a matter of record regarding the withdrawal of the amount of Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/- from the account of the complainant through ATM on the intervening night of 9/10.2.2018 i.e. Rs.40,000/- before 12:00 midnight and Rs.40,000/- after 12:00 midnight and issuance of two text messages to the complainant regarding withdrawal of the aforesaid amount. It is also matter of record regarding filing of the applications dated 12.2.2018 and 14.2.2018. It is further pleaded that detailed enquiry was conducted into the matter by the opposite parties regarding complaint lodged by complainant with the opposite parties about fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.80,000/- from her account by some unknown person. Suring the course of the investigation, it revealed that the ATM Card of the complainant was being used by her brother Sunny Dadwal and the PIN of the said ATM Card of the complainant was within the knowledge of her brother and the same was being used by the brother of the complainant from time to time who had earlier also withdrew amount from the account of the complainant through her ATM Card by using the PIN which the complainant was bound to protect and not to share with anyone including her family members. The withdrawal of the amount by the brother of the complainant from the account of the complainant through ATM Card on different dates is clear from the footage of CCTV Camera installed by the opposite parties. The safekeeping of ATM Card and PIN Number is the responsibility of the customer and where the loss is occurred to any customer due to the negligence on part of the customer, owing to the sharing of PIN/Card with another person, the bank is not responsible for any such loss rather such a customer himself/ herself is responsible as per clause no.7(i) of the guidelines issued by RBI vide circular No. Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 6.7.2018. During the course of the enquiry, it also revealed that the brother of the complainant withdrew the amount from the account of the complainant during the intervening night of 9/10.2.2018 by using the ATM and PIN number of the complainant and as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 15.11.2018. The complainant, in collusion and connivance with her brother filed this false complaint against the opposite parties. It is pleaded that the complainant's ATM Card bearing No.6038455068600005285 was surrendered by her brother Sunny Dadwal on 9.4.2018. The claim of the complainant has already been settled and having been found to be false and the same has been repudiated vide letter dated 15.11.2018 after thorough investigation. The complainant herself was found negligent having shared her ATM Card and PIN Number with her brother who was found often using the said ATM Card for withdrawing the amount from account of complainant from time to time. It is further pleaded that complainant was also provided copies of the CC footage of their ATM Cabin where the incident took place whereby one person with muffled face and wearing helmet entered in the ATM Cabin. It was denied that there was no security guard outside the said Cabin as alleged. It is pleaded that the person entered into the Cabin was holding the ATM Card and used the same in a proper manner with PIN Code of the said ATM Card and it could be possible only with the consent of the complainant who had shared her ATM Card and PIN with the said person. It was also denied that the complainant has suffered any alleged loss of Rs,80,000/- as alleged or that the opposite parties have caused any mental agony,pains and sufferings to her. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In order to prove the claim, complainant tendered into evidence photocopy of power of attonrey (Ex.C-1), photocopy of passbook (Ex.C-2), photocopy of applications (Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4), photocopy of declaration ( Ex.C-5), Important information ( Ex.C-6), photocopy of appliation ( Ex.C-7), certificate ( Ex.C-8), CD( Ex-C9), copy of legal notice ( Ex.C-10), postal receipts ( Ex.C-11 & C-12),acknowlegement ( Ex.C-13), affidavit of Bihari Lal dated 13-11-2018 (Ex.C-14), and photocopy of letter( Ex.C-15). In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit ofAjay Kumar Singh dated 02-01-2019 ( Ex.OP-1/1), photocopy of log ( Ex.OP-1/2), photocoy of letter ( Ex.OP-1/3), photocopy of inquiry reort (Ex.OP-1/4), photocopies of letters ( Ex.OP-1/5 and OP-1/6), photocopy of RBI guidelines( Ex.OP-1/7) CD ( Ex.OP-1/8) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. These are undisputed facts of the parties that complainant is holder of saving bank A/c No. 10002665685 of the opposite parties against which ATM Card No. 6038455068600005285 has been issued to her. The grudge of the complainant in the case in hand is that two transactions/withdrawl of Rs. 40,000/- each, through ATM card, took place from the account of the complainant on the intervening night of 9/10-2-2018, which has not been done by her and she has not shared her account and personal details with anybody. The plea of the opposite parties is that complainant has shared PIN number of her ATM with her brother Sunny Dadwal and as per opposite parties withdrawl of the amount by the brother of the complainant from the account of complainant through ATM Card on different dates is clear from the footage of CCTV Camera installed by the opposite parties. According to opposite parties safekeeping of ATM Card and PIN Number is the responsibility of the customer and where the loss is occurred to any customer due to negligence on the part of customer, owing to sharing of PIN/Card with another person the bank is not responsible for any such loss as per clause No. 7(i) of guidelines issued by RBI vide Circular Leg.BC.78/09-07.005/2017-18 dated 6-7-2018. A perusal of file reveals that as per clause 7(i) of guidlines issued by RBI vide above referred circular dated 6-7-2018 - A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorised transaction in the cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss untill he reports the unauthorised transaction to the bank. In the case in hand, it is the case of the complainant that she did not share her account and personal details with anybody (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4) but it is proved that the complainant has shared PIN number of her ATM card with her brother (Ex. OP-1/2) which is against the guidelines of RBI. Even as per certificate Ex. C-8 ATM Card of complainant was returned by her brother Sunny Dadwal to Bank. Therefore, opposite parties cannnot be held responsible for the same. The complainant has neither proved by producing cogent and convincing evidence that she never shared PIN number of her ATM card with anybody and not violated the rules/guidelines of RBI nor rebutted the evidence produced by opposite parties. When she herself is negligent and not followed the guidelines issued by RBI regarding ATM, she is not entitled to any claim. Thus, no deficiency in service is found on the part of opposite parties. Resultantly, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 29-11-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
