Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/173

SURJEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

12 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

 

CASE NO.  173/2017

SH. SURJEET SINGH

S/o LT. SH. MANBHARAN SINGH

R/o G-3/7, SAI ENCLAVE,

GALI NO. 10,

UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110059.                                         …..Complainant

VERSUS

STATE BANK OF INDIA

ADD-MILAP NAGAR,

NEAR HIMALYA SAGAR RESTAURANT,

UTTAM NAGAR BRANCH,

NEW DELHI-110059.…..Opposite Party-1

 

 

O R D E R

 

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly the facts as alleged by the complainant are that he is having a saving account with OP and on 05.02.2017 two illegal transactions for a sum of Rs. 19,990/- and Rs. 19,992/- were done and on the same day a SMS was received by the complainant for the said amount thereafter he approached OP and lodged complaint whereby he was informed that transactions is done through PAYTM at Noida. It is alleged that due to negligence of Bank the illegal transactions were done. Hence, the present complaint for refund of Rs. 39,982/- and compensation Rs. 20,000/- towards mental, agony and physical harassment and litigation expenses.  

          After notice, OP appeared and filed short reply admitting that the complainant is having saving account and he has shared his ATM Pin or any other information regarding the saving account. Therefore, the disputed amount wad deducted from his account. It is averred that the OP bank always advised to the customer not share password with anyone.

          When the complainant was asked to lead evidence, the complainant filed affidavit of evidence testifying the contents of complaint on oath and deposed that he has not shared his account details or OTP and never PAYTM services and also relied upon copy letter dated 05.02.2017 and 07.02.2017, copy of undated letter address to branch manager of OP and copy of details of OTP log.

          Despite opportunity OP failed to file evidence and proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.09.2018.

          We have heard complainant in person and gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

It is admitted that the PAYTM Facilities/ATM Card remains in the custody of the users.  The password is also only known to the users.  No transaction can be carried out by the user without using PAYTM Facilities/ATM Card along with Password to which he/she is only privy to it.  In the present case also the PAYTM Facilities/ATM Card was in possession of the complainant and the Password was only in his knowledge without which he could not have operated the PAYTM Facilities/ATM Card. Moreover, the complainant has not shown any document to support that he has never used PAYTM Facilities. The OTP logs shows that the disputed transactions were successful.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on part of OP. Needless to say the complainant has not placed on record any evidence which could show the OP committed deficiency in service.  

Keeping in view the above observations we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency or negligence in services on the part of the OP. Accordingly, the complaint fails and is dismissed.  

File be consigned to Record Room.

          Copy of Order be given as per rules.

          Announced this ___12TH_______ April, 2019.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                               (K.S. MOHI)

     MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT