Karnataka

Kolar

CC/31/2021

Sri.Nisar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager,Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.V.Venkatachala Gowda

18 Jul 2022

ORDER

Date of Filing: 28.12.2021

Date of Disposal: 18.07.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHIKKABALLAPUR.

 

Dated: 18^th DAY OF JULY 2022

PRESENT

SRI.SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SRI.SAVITHA AIRANI,B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 31 OF 2021

Sri. Nisar,

S/o.M.Abdul Azeez,

Aged About 58 years,

R/at: Near B.M.S. School,

D.No.6061, Ammavaripet,

Kolar & Proprietor of

M/s. Janatha Electricals, Kolar.                                       ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri.V.Venkatachala Gowda, Advocate)

- V/s –

The Chief Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

1^st Cross, Brahmin Street,

Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri.S.N.Mallikarjuna Swamy, Advocate)      …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

ORDER

BY SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint against Opposite party-Bank alleging deficiency in service and prays to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.59,877-60 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum along with litigation expenses.

02.   The brief facts of complainant’s case is that, the complainant is the current account holder of the OP Bank having the current account bearing No.40350200000730 and he opened the said account on 28.02.2004 in the name of his business “Janatha Electricals, Kolar”.  The complainant even having the ATM card he only withdraw the amount through cheque only, because complainant has poor eye sight and he is aged more than 58 years.  Further complainant submits that, since from 2004 i.e., from the date of inception of the current account OP-Bank has no bad remarks or any complaint against  the complainant, but when the complainant obtained the statement from OP-Bank on 12.02.2021 he came to know that, lesser amount in his account and some stranger had withdrawn the amount through ATM from his current account, even the ATM card is under complainant’s custody, the stranger had withdrawn amount of Rs.59,877-60 paise from complainant’s account, after comparing the statement given by the OP-Bank.      Further complainant submits that, the complainant gave the complaint to the cyber crime police, Kolar, on 16.03.2021 and they issued a NCR on the same day.  Thereupon complainant had given the compliant to the OP-Bank about missing of amount from his current account through ATM along with NCR issued by the cyber crime on 21.03.2021.  There was no any response from the OP-Bank to the complainant.  After that, complainant issued legal notice to the OP-Bank through his counsel on 04.12.2021.  For that, OP replied negatively on 13.12.2021 which amounts to deficiency in service hence this complaint.

03.   After receipt of notice OP appeared through counsel and filed its version.  In the version OP has contended that, the complainant has filed complaint to the cyber police and they issued NCR is not within the knowledge of this OP.  The complainant had issued notice dated: 04.12.2021 and the same is suitably replied on 13.12.2021.  Hence OP is not liable to pay the compensation due to any deficiency in service.  Complainant even today has in possession of ATM card which was obtained by the Bank and operating the same ATM card till today.  If the ATM card is stolen or he lost the same, the complainant never lodged any complaint regarding the same before any competent authority.  The ATM card of the complainant might have been used by his family members or any confidential to him under his instructions.  And all the withdrawals made from the complainant ATM card all the details of debit entries through the ATM reflected in separate bank sheets.  All the withdrawals are communicated through messages to the complainant’s mobile by the OP Bank.  The complainant has not given any details about the withdrawals with date, amount and place of withdrawals and ATM center.  The withdrawals made from the complainant’s account dated: 30.01.2021, 08.02.201, 09.02.2021, 10.02.2021, are all reflected to his mobile number by sending messages.  Further OP submits that, the complainant is not sure when and where and how much amount withdrawn from his account. Whatever it may be all the withdrawals made by the complainant’s account sent to his notice and communicated by way of messages and separate details ATM cash withdrawals made to the account No.40350200000730.  Messages might not gone when mobile is switched-off or not within the service area.  If any fraud happened complainant should have instructed to the OP Bank to block the said ATM card within 3 days from the fist transaction on 30.01.2021, but the complainant has never approached the OP to block the said ATM card.  Contending so the OP prays to dismiss the complaint   

       

04.   In order to prove their case both the complainant and OP-bank has filed affidavit evidence along with documents.

05.   Heard arguments on both sides.

06.   On the basis the pleadings of both the parties along with documents placed on record, the following points will arise for our consideration:-

(1) Whether the complainant has proved

deficiency in service on the part of OP-

•  

 

2.  

relief as sought for in the complaint?

 

3.  

07.    Our findings on the above points are:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      Are in Negative

 

POINT (3):-              As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

08.   POINTS (1) & (2):-   These points are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.

09.   On perusing the records it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant is the current account holder of the OP Bank from 28.02.2004 having current account bearing No.40350200000730 in the name of his business “Janatha Electricals, Kolar”.  The main attack of the complainant is that, on 12.02.2021 the complainant came to know that there was lesser amount in his current account after obtaining the statement from the Op-bank and some stranger had withdrawn the amount through ATM from his current account, even the ATM card is under the custody of the complainant.  Further complainant deposed that, he came to know that, some stranger had withdrawn an amount of Rs.59,877-60 paise from the complainant’s current account after comparing the statement given by the OP-Bank. 

10    Per contra the OP-Bank has contended that, the complainant has not given any details about the withdrawals with date, amount and place of withdrawals and ATM center and the withdrawals made from the complainant’s account dated: 30.01.2021, 08.02.201, 09.02.2021, 10.02.2021 are all reflected to his mobile number by sending messages.  Whatever it may be all the withdrawals made by the complainant’s account were sent to his notice and were communicated by way of messages and separate details ATM cash withdrawals made to the account No.40350200000730 and if any fraud happened complainant should inform to the OP Bank to block the said ATM card well within time from the first transaction, but the complainant has never approached the OP-Bank to block the said ATM card and it is his negligence.

 

11.   On perusing the documents produced by the complainant it clearly goes to show that, the disputed transaction took place on 30.01.2021 to 10.02.2021 and a total amount of Rs.59,924.80 paise was withdrawn from his complainant’s account.  Thereafter after knowing the same on 12.02.2021 the complainant made a complaint before the cyber crime police, Kolar, and on the same day cyber crime police has issued NCR to the complainant.  But the complainant made a complaint to the OP-bank on 21.03.2021 i.e., after lapse of one month 10 days for which the complainant did not give any sufficient reason of delay to believe it. The complainant was not taken any steps to inform the OP. after he comes to know that there was lesser amount in his current account.whereas the  complainant failed to  lodged complaint to the OP.bank as well as to the jurisdictional police.  But the complainant did not give any satisfactory explaination to believe his story and not assigned proper reasons in his affidavit evidence.   A man slept over his rights, the law will not extend its helping hand and the same is applicable to the case of the complainant. 

 

12.   Further the complainant did not sought for blockage of the said ATM card which resulted to fraudulent transaction.  The complainant being a current account holder he should be very vigilant and diligent about his day-to-day financial transactions done in his current account and the complainant did not produce any cogent evidence to prove that, he is suffering from eye sight problem for which he is not at all using his ATM card and all the transaction were done by him only through cheque itself.

14.   Further the complainant neither in his complaint nor in his affidavit evidence has stated about the payment made by the insurance company amounting to Rs.11,500/- with respect to the claim made towards 1^st transaction done on 30.01.2021 and further he also not deposed about the claim made with respect to 2^nd transaction happened on 08.02.2021 for Rs.1,600/- and the said 2^nd transaction claim was rejected by the insurance company and hence in our opinion complainant suppressed the above said facts of receiving claim as contended by the Op. bank .

15.   The insurance company stated that “The TAT for blocking the card is 3 days.  For Hot listing the card customer had time to block the card, but due to the negligence he has not done so”.  Hence insurance company has passed only first claim.  On perusing Document No.2 produced by the OP- bank  It clearly shows that, the first day transaction was refunded by the insurance company and thereafter transactions were rejected from the insurance company saying that, the complainant was negligent and not informed the same well in time to the OP-Bank.  Furthermore though the complainant has filed complaint before the Cyber Crime Police, Kolar, on 16.03.2021 and they issued NCR on the same day to the complainant, but after that what about the status of the said cyber complaint is not at all whispered by the complainant and the same establishes that, the complainant was negligent in following the case status.

 

16.   The OP-Bank has contended that, if the ATM card is stolen or he lost the same, the complainant never lodged any complaint regarding the same before any competent authority.  The OP-Bank has not known that, the amount withdrawn from the complainant’s current account by some stranger because the complainant has not made any complaint to the OP-Bank well in time. So on perusing all  the documents we reached   to the conclusion that, the OP-bank has not committed deficiency  in service and the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPbank.    Hence  complainant is not entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered Point Nos.(1) & (2) are in the Negative.    

17.   POINT (3):-      In view of the above discussions on Point Nos. (1) and (2) thereon we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 18^th DAY OF JULY 2022)

 

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT