State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satte Bank Of India, Samda Branch vs Sri Deoraj Singhdeo on 2 June, 2023
I
S TArI, C ON S U M E I{ D I S P U' I'lr S [tllDltll S S z\ I- C OM MI S S I O N,
ODISHA. CUTTACK
FIIIST APPEAL NO. 821 of 20 t2
(Flon-r an order dated 12.09.2012 passecl by the District
Consumer Disputs Redressal Forum(Comrnission),Jhalsugtrcia
in Consurner Con-rplaint No. 9512011)
I - State llank of India,
Sarnda Ilranch, PO/PS- Belpahar,
I)ist- .[harsuguda.
Itepresented by its Principal Officer
the Chief Mana.uer.
Appclhnt
- Versus-
Sri I)eoraj Singl-rdeo,
S/o.Late Dhiraj Singhdeo,resident of
Qr.No.K/ I 4U,TIIL Colony,
PO/PS- Belpahar,Dist- Jharsuguda.
Respontlcnt
Cor-rnsel for tl-re Appellants- Sri D.P.Sarangi & Associates
Cor-rnsel for the Respondent-None
PRESENT :- _ Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Member.
Sri Henrant Kumar Mohanty, Mernber.
DATtr OF TIEAIUNG-2s. 04, 2023
I)ATri OF OltpEtt- 02. 06.2023
2
ORDER
This appeal arises out of an order dt.12.09.2012 passcd by District Cot-tsutner Disputes Redressal Forurn, Jharsugucla in C-'or-rsunrer Conrplaint No.95/20 1 I. The case of the complainant is that the cornplainant is a Savir-rgs Bank Account l-rolder of State Bar-rk of India bearing S. B. Account No.10707924823 with AfM Card facilities . The complainant on 10.01 .2)ll rvanted to rvithdraw some money from ATN4 counter located at Gumadera and inspite of repeated attempts he could not withdaw any amount as the machine r,vent out of order during transanction. Then the complainant again tried to withdraw frorlr another ATM machine in the same counter and withdrwl-r R.1,000/- and left the place. But subsequently,after f-ew days the couplainant found that Rs.5,000/- has been debited from his account on 10.01.2011. l-he cornplainant immediately informed the rnatter to Opp.Party and as per his advice he lodged an FIR before the Police Station,Belpahar on 02.02.2011 and also subrrritted a written request to the Opposite Party to reirntrr"trse the missing amount. But no action was taken by Opp.Par-ty to refund the rnissing atnount, therefore, he filed the complaint before the learned Forum below for redressal of his grievances.
The Opp.Parties in its written version stated that on verificatior-r it was found that there were two transactions on 10.1.2011 fiorn ATM Carcl No.6220180844500005146 from different machines. The flrst one was liour 3 ATM No. S104008445001 of Rs.1000/- and the other one was from AfM No'S108008445003 of Rs.5,000/- by using con-rplainant's AfM carcl. l'he:
two transactions were successful one. The relative response cocle shows as 000 which tneans cash paid to the Account holder. It was conclr,rsive proof'of successlul cash transactions of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively cione from the ATM Card of the complainant. It was further stated that rhe AfM Card being a PIN basecl secured card can only be used thror-rgJr proper plN alter swiping the Card. WithoLrt prrtting proper PIN, money carl 1oL bc dispe,sed with through ATM. There was no theft tiom AT-M or any tampering of ATM tlachine found. It is further slatecl that the conrplainant had lodged cornplaint with the Police authorities for enqr-riry ancl investigation into the alleged incident and the investigation is still going on.
As per Bank's records and transactions record generated by ATM shows that dispensation of cash rvhich can only be possible by using the ATM Card with proper PIN, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on its part.
The leamed Forum below after hearir-rg the case, passecl orcler directing the Opp.Party to pay Rs.5,000/- to the cor-nplainant alongwith I{s'2,000/- towards compensation for mental agon} harassment ancl cost of the case within one month of receipt of the order failing which Opp.parly shall be liable to pay B0z interest p.a tirl realisation.
Challenging the impugned order of the learnecl Forum below. the present appeal has been filed by the Appellant.4
During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Appellant sr"rbmitted that Rs.1,000/- had been withclrawn on 10.01.2011 from Gunladera AfM counter by using ATM Carcl of the complainapt and the amoultt was debited fiorn his S.B.Account. On the same day again Its.5,000/- was withdrawn by using the ATM card of the complailant. All twg transactions were successful. But few days after, the complainant came to know about unauthorised withdrawal of Rs.5,000/-from his account orl I 0'01 .2011. On the request of the cornplainant, the O.P had gone tl"rrough the CC camera and came to know that an unknown person have tampered the ATM rnachinc to take away Rs.5,000/- successfully. The matter was also repofled to Belpahar ps vide sD entry No.37 dt.02.02.2011, rhc investigation is still going on. Unless the ATM Card is used with proper plN, there can not be any withdrawal. Since the withdrawal had been eff-ectecl through the ATM Card of the complainant using his secret PIN, there was no scope for hirn to lodge the coniplaint. ATM joun-ral and bar-rk recorcls clearl,v indicate that the cornplainant is responsible for each withdrawal. B,t the learned Forum below without condsidering the materials filed on behalf of thc Opp.party bank has passed the impugned order holcling that the Appellapt 6as faiied to prove its plea and directed the Appellant to pay Rs.5,000/- ro the cornplainant alongwith Rs.2,000/- towards colnpansation and costs which is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the materials available on record, as such the same is liable to be set aside.5
It is also contended that law is well settled that on acceptance of the terms and conditions with regard to user's of the debit carcl, for latc6es of debit card holder deficienicy in service can not be alleged against the Ilank.
It is further subrnitted that complainant was given AfM carcl alongwith secret PIN to which the cornplainant is the only person to l<norv the PIN . No money can be withdrawn fiom the AfM machine other than thc complainant unless the ,\Ti\'[ Card and sccret PIN is hascletl uver./give1 [9 it persotl by complainant.
The cotrnsel for the Appellant cited a decision reported in 2011 STPL(CL) 566 NC in the case of State Banl< of India Vrs. I(.K.Bhrlla rvherein the FIon'ble National cornrnission has held thart:-
" bte are not convinced by this reasoning of either the District Foruru or the Stule Conunission purticuhrly, in view of thefuct lhot merel.i, becuse tlte CCTVv,cts not working on those dcrles ond itsfoorage wrs llttrs trot avoilttble, does not nrcfin thst the ruonq) could be withclruwn .fioudulently p|11,out usirrg the ATM Currl und the PIIY nunfier. In cuse tht ATXI cord hod been stolen or lhe PI]\{ number lrucl beconrc knotytt to persons other thon ATM csrd holrler then the CCTV cor)eroge coulfl lr6t,t: helped in indenttfying the persons who hod froutlulently userl the c:rtrr!. In tlre instunt cuse it is not tlisputed thot lhe ATM Corcl or PIIY remrtineel in the seff-ctrstttdy/knrtn'ledge o/'the Respondent. In view of elohorate procelrra 6 evolved by the Petitioner/Bsnk to ensure thst without the ATM Curcl orul knowledtge of the PIIV number, it is not possible.for money to be withclran,n by ort unuuthorised person from sn ATM , we /ind it ctifJicult to at,celtt tha llesponclentts cortlentiort. IYo doubt there have been cuses o./'.fi.rtuclulent witltdrou,ctls us staterl lty the State Commissiort but the circunnlunces oJ' those coses nruy rrol be the sonte s.s irt tltis case ancl in oll probubititJ,, these froudulent witlrdrawals occured either because the ATll[ Cord or llrc Pt]y rr rtnr lter .l'el I i n wrottg h unds. "
The counsel for the appellant further cited the decision passed by iJon'ble National Consutner Disputes Redressal Cornnrission in case ol' Strrtc Ilank of Inclia Vrs. Om Prakash Saini dccidecl on l8'r' January, 2013 in tlre Revision Petition No.2382 of z0lz wherein it is held that :
"Leurned District Foruru ullowed the corultluint ntoi7l.1, on rhc ground thst vicleo footage were not furnished to the conrploinsnt by thc ttltltosite par$t snd the leorned Sfute Commission olso observed the sanre Joct irt tlre intpugnecl order. In this cose, video footuge huil no relevunce ut ull becuuse tltis is not the csse of contplainont that he dicl not go to operilc zltM mochine o/'opposite purty. Opposite purty ltts olso ruentioned in its written stotenrcnt that csmero is /ixed only on the fuce of the user etnd nol rtrr tlte keys of the ATM ond the delivery window. Irr such circumstun(,es, rtort-strpply of vicleo footage had no bearing on the cluint o/' the cornplainont ond on this deficiency claim could nol hove been allowerl by 7 llre learned District Forunt ancl uphelcl by the leurned Stole Coruntissien. Consecluentl.y, petition filefl b), the pefifioner/O.p is ollow,ed ttguittst t1t, responent and impugned order dt. 17.2.20212 possed by the leorneel Stnte Conmtission in EA No.860 of 2011 is set oiscle uncl contplttirtt o.f' rhr:
cornplai nont is clisnissed.,, In the present case, the cornplainant is the custoclian of Al'N4 Carcl and secret PIN, without ATM carcl and secret PIN nroney can not bc rvithdrawn fiom ATM machine. It is found that money has been withcl.awl lionl the ATM machine which can not be possible without the Al-M card ancl its seclet PIN and it is not the case of complairrant that his carcl 6as bcc. stolen or misused. When the ATM carcl is not stolen or there is no allegatioir regarcling tnisuse of ATM card by any other person, it is clear that thc rvitl-rdrawal has been made with the help of AfM card using the secret plN number and without the l-relp/knowledge of cornplainant lr-roney can pot bc withdrawn fi'om the ATM machine.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gonc through the DFR, appeal merlo and the reply of cornplainant/respondcnl tg the said appeal lnelno, we found that there is no allegatior-r of conrplainant regarcling stolen of ATM Card/debit card during the relevant periocl u,heq lroney was witl-rdrawn from the account of complainant through zy1'VI machine Admittedly, money was withdrawn lrorn the account ol cornplainant on 10.01 .20Il through AfM machine using the ATM/debiL carcl a, 8 and secret PIN. The complainantl respondent has stated that he lodged F.t.R befbre police authorities but police report has not been submitted by cornplainant.
Relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble National Cornrnission in case of State Bank of India Vrs. I(.K.Bhalla reporled in2011 STPL(CL) 566 N.C and in case of State Bank of India Vrs. Om Prakash Sashi in Revision Petition NO.2382 of 2012 cited by counsel of Appellant and after pelusal of DFR, appeal Merno, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and the learned Forum below without taking into consideratior-r the written version filed by Opp.parly/ Appellant has passed the irnpugned order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- to the cornplainant along rvith Rs.2,000/- compensation towards mental agony and cost of litigation, ivhioh is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Hence, the impugned order is set aside.
Appeal is allowed.
Complaint petition is dismissed.
Send back the DFR.
Statutory amount, if any be returned on proper identification. (H.K.Mohanty) frL-
(D.K.IvIo[apatra)
Member Member