State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of Patiala vs Rameshwar Dass Gupta on 25 October, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.264 of 2009.
Date of Institution: 04.03.2009.
Date of Decision: 25.10.2012.
1. State Bank of Patiala, Punjab State Electricity Board, Head Office
Branch, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
2. The General Manager, Head Office, State Bank of Patiala, The Mall,
Patiala.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Rameshwar Dass Gupta S/o Sh. Tarbaini Bhagat, Resident of # 100-D, Street
No.3, Partap Nagar, Patiala.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
19.01.2009 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. B.B. Bagga, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. P.S. Gulani, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
State Bank of Patiala & Anr., appellants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Rameshwar Dass Gupta, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants, asserting that he was issued an ATM Card bearing no. 603845503230009443 which was used by the respondent till December, 2005, as it was lost on 10.12.2005. The respondent on the very First Appeal No.264 of 2009 2 next working day i.e. 12.12.2005, contacted the appellants for intimating about the loss of ATM Card, to avoid misuse of the said ATM Card. The branch manager of the appellant, after checking the balance amount, told the respondent that the card has been got blocked and new card will be issued after 3-4 days. When the respondent visited again, the branch manager of the appellant asked him to move an application for issuing of new ATM Card and the same was given.
3. After a few days, new ATM Card bearing no.6038455032 300026603 was received by the respondent and he operated the same for withdrawing Rs.8,000/- on 09.01.2006. The respondent forgot to note the pass word and he again moved an application with the appellants to issue another duplicate ATM Card, which was issued and used by the respondent for withdrawing Rs.3500/- on 14.05.2006.
4. On 15.05.2006, when the respondent got his passbook completed, he was shocked to know that there were four transactions of withdrawal of money from his account through old ATM Card no. 603845503230009443 which had already been blocked by the bank, on account of its loss. The three transactions of withdrawal were of Rs.5,000/- each on 06.05.2006 and Rs.10,000/- on 07.05.2006 and total amount of Rs.25,000/- was withdrawn through the said blocked ATM Card. The respondent met the branch manager of the appellants and he assured that the money will be refunded, as there might be some technical problem. The amount was not deposited in the account of the respondent and he moved an application dated 23.05.2006 which was replied vide reply dated 29.05.2006. The respondent again wrote letter dated 10.07.2006 and reminder dated 19.10.2006 to the appellants, but they refused to listen to the requests of the respondent and false assurances were given. It seems that the bank authorities did not block the old ATM Card, or the officials misappropriated the amount by playing some trick. The appellants have not deposited Rs.25,000/- First Appeal No.264 of 2009 3 which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and it has caused great mental harassment and financial loss.
5. It was prayed that the appellants be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the respondent wrongly withdrawn from his account along with interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.
6. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellants, it was pleaded that the respondent is not a consumer of the bank, as defined under the Act. It was admitted that the respondent has the bank account bearing no.55006276850 with appellant no.1. It was also admitted that the respondent had informed about the loss of ATM Card and on his instructions, further operation in the account through ATM Card was stopped. The new ATM Card was issued and the respondent has withdrawn Rs.8,000/- on 09.01.2006 and when he reported again about having forgotten the password, another ATM Card was issued bearing number, as mentioned in the complaint.
7. It was also admitted that four transactions of withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- each on 06.05.2006 and Rs.10,000/- on 07.05.2006 were carried out from the old ATM Card no.603845503230009443. It was further submitted that the above said ATM Card could not be operated by any third person in the absence of knowledge of password, known as PIN of the respondent. It seems that the said card has been used either by some family members or relations of the respondent, who knew the password, or by the respondent himself.
8. On the receipt of request of the respondent regarding misuse of his previous ATM Card, the matter was scrutinized and the records were checked and a detailed reply was sent. Had the lost card been found by someone else, then he would not have waited for five months to misuse the card. On intimation regarding the loss of ATM card, only operation of the account could be stopped and as per the rules, the same was done by the First Appeal No.264 of 2009 4 appellants. Other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
10. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the respondent lost his ATM Card on 10.12.2005 and he gave the intimation to the appellants on 12.12.2005 and the card was got blocked. There were three transactions of withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- each on 06.05.2006 and Rs.10,000/- on 07.05.2006 and total Rs.25,000/- has been shown to be withdrawn through the said ATM Card. The bank authorities did not block the old ATM Card and this happened due to the fault of the appellants, and allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to pay Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of withdrawal till realization along with Rs.2,000/- as compensation and costs.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.01.2009, the appellants have come up in appeal.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that on receipt of the intimation about the loss of ATM Card by the respondent, the operation of the account of the respondent was blocked and there was no chance of withdrawal of any amount. It has been contended that due to some technical default, even if the account was not blocked, then for that the appellant bank is not responsible. It has been contended that there can be human error as well as the mechanical error and for that the appellant cannot be held responsible. The order passed by the District Forum is against the facts and evidence on record and the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside.
First Appeal No.264 of 2009 5
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the impugned order is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same and the appeal may be dismissed.
15. We have considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties and have carefully scanned the entire documents and material placed on the file.
16. Admittedly, the respondent was issued the ATM Card No. 603845503230009443 and it was used by the respondent till 10th December, 2005 and on that day, it was lost and the respondent immediately informed the appellant no.1 bank on 12.12.2005 about the loss of the card and requested to block the operation of the ATM Card and as per the Branch Manager, the operation of the ATM Card was blocked. It is also admitted that thereafter, another card was issued. It was also admitted that there were three transactions of withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- each on 06.05.2006 and Rs.10,000/- on 07.05.2006 against the old ATM Card, although as per the appellants, the operation of the said card was blocked. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there can be human error or technical fault/error, is considerable but for the fault of the appellants, the respondent cannot be blamed. The respondent has done his duty by informing the appellant bank immediately on 12.12.2005 and as per the branch manager of the appellant, the operation of the said card was blocked. Thereafter, if the amount was still withdrawn after about five months through the blocked card, then it is the negligence on the part of the officials of the appellant and for that, the respondent cannot be blamed. The District Forum has rightly held that the transactions took place through the said blocked ATM card. The appellants have been rightly held to be deficient in service and unfair trade practice on their part and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The District Forum has allowed only the amount withdrawn and a meager amount of litigation expenses. The appellant bank instead of complying with the order of the District Forum has tried to delay the First Appeal No.264 of 2009 6 compliance of the order and has filed this frivolous appeal and the same requires to be dismissed with special costs.
17. In view of above discussion, the appeal being without any merit and being fictitious is dismissed with special costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and the impugned order under appeal dated 19.01.2009 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
18. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.16,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/ complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
19. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum along with costs imposed vide this order shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent/complainant within 60 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
20. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.10.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member October 25, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)