State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank vs Krishan Kumar on 20 July, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 94 / 2010
Punjab National Bank
A Corporate Body having its Head Office at
7, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi through one of its Branch at
Gurudwara Road, Jwalapur, District Haridwar
through its Senior Manager Sh. S.K. Goyal
......Appellant
Versus
Sh. Krishan Kumar Arora S/o late Sh. Brijlal Arora
R/o Mohalla Maliyan, Kathara Bazar
Jwalapur, District Haridwar
......Respondent
Sh. Vijai Kumar Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. T.K. Singh, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 20/07/2016
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 19.03.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 338 of 2008.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the respondent - complainant is having Saving Bank Account No. 1829000101062392 with Punjab National Bank, Gurudwara Road, Jwalapur, Haridwar and he was issued ATM card No. 504884 by the bank. On 30.09.2008, there was credit balance of Rs. 37,717/- in the account of the complainant. On 03.10.2008 at 6:24 p.m., the 2 complainant had withdrawn sum of Rs. 15,000/- from his account by use of ATM at the ATM machine situated within the premises of Railway Station, Haridwar. After withdrawing the said sum, the complainant again wanted to withdraw certain amount from his account, whereupon he came to know that his ATM card has went missing. The complainant went to Ahmedpur Branch of Punjab National Bank and made a call at the helpline number of the bank and gave intimation regarding missing of the ATM card and made a request on 7:05 p.m. for locking the ATM card, but the ATM card was not locked. Thereafter, the complainant made several calls at the helpline number of the bank for stopping the ATM services, but the needful was not done. On 04.10.2008, the complainant lodged an FIR with the G.R.P., Railway, Haridwar regarding missing of his ATM card. On 04.10.2008, the complainant went to the bank and requested for locking the ATM card and when the complainant inquired for balance in his account, he was informed that certain amount as mentioned in para 8 of the consumer complaint has been illegally withdrawn from his account on 03.10.2008 and 04.10.2008 respectively by use of ATM card and there is credit balance of Rs. 17/- in his account. It was alleged that sum of Rs. 17,700/- was illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant on account of negligence on the part of the bank, as the ATM card was not timely locked by the bank officials. The complainant sent a letter dated 20.10.2008 to the bank for making good the loss caused to him, but no amount was paid by the bank. Thereafter alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The bank filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant sought general information from the customer care agent of the bank and did not give any instruction for 3 locking his ATM card; that the complainant was himself negligent as he did not follow the instructions of the user manual of ATM; that the password of ATM card is very confidential and it is the duty of the customer to secure his password and not to disclose the same to others and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum after perusal of the evidence on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 19.03.2010 and directed the appellant - bank to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent - complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the bank has filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had made several calls at the helpline / customer care number of the bank for locking his ATM card as his ATM card had went missing. The details of the said calls have been given in para 4 and 5 of the consumer complaint. The duration of the said calls has also been mentioned by the complainant in his consumer complaint and it has been alleged by the complainant that inspite of his request, his ATM card was not locked, which resulted in illegal withdrawal of amount from his account. The bank has not denied the said fact and has pleaded that the complainant has only sought general information from the customer care agent and did not give instruction for locking his ATM card.
7. The stand taken by the bank can not be believed and it can not be presumed that on such number of occasions when the call was 4 made by the complainant at the helpline / customer care number of the bank, only general information was sought by the complainant and he did not give any instruction for locking his ATM card. A person whose ATM card has went missing, would not seek any general information from the customer care agent of the bank and at the first instance, would like to get his ATM card locked, so that no illegal withdrawal is made from his account and the amount lying in his account is saved. The complainant has come with clean hands and has not claimed refund of Rs. 22,700/-, which amount was withdrawn from his account after his ATM card went missing and has only claimed sum of Rs. 17,700/-, which amount was illegally withdrawn from his account after his first call at the helpline number of the bank and when even after his request, his ATM card was not locked.
8. It is true that amount can not be withdrawn by use of ATM card unless the person using the ATM card knows the password, but in the present facts and circumstances of the case, had the complainant's ATM card locked on his first call made at the helpline number of the bank, the occasion for illegal withdrawal of the amount from the account of the complainant would not have arisen and the complainant would not have been deprived of his amount.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision dated 04.12.2015 of the Hon'ble National Commission given in Revision Petition No. 263 of 2015; Neelam Maladhari Vs. Branch Manager, Corporation Bank. The said case pertain to internet banking and in the said case, payments were made through internet bank using transaction password. It was held that if any unauthorized transaction has been made by anybody, it is subject to criminal investigation only and no deficiency in service was found on the part of the bank. The facts of the said case are different from the facts of the instant case. In 5 the case at hand, as is stated above, the complainant had made several calls at the helpline number of the bank for locking his ATM card, but the needful was not done and certain amount was illegally withdrawn from his account by use of his ATM card which had went missing.
10. The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly allowed the consumer complaint per impugned order in the above manner. The appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.
11. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K