State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Y. Chenna Krishna Reddy, Ananthapur ... vs Sbi, Dharmavaram Branch on 1 October, 2012
BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD FA.NO. 251 OF 2011 AGAINST CC.NO.99/2010 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM, Ananthapur Between: Y. Chenna Krishna Reddy s/o Y. Sanjeeva Reddy School Assistant MPUP School Kunuthur Village, Dharmavaram Mandal Ananthapur District .. Appellant/complainant And The Branch Manager State Bank of India Dharmavaram branch Ananthapur District .. opposite party/Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. K. Parandhamachari Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. B. S. Prasad CORAM: SRI R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER Monday, the First Day of OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order: (Per Sri Thota Ashok Kumar, Honble Member).
F.A.No.251/2011 against C.C. 99/2010 dt.29.10.2010 on the filed of the D.C.F Anantapur.
This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant against the orders dt.29.10.2010 in C.C.No.99/2010 on the file of D.C.F, Ananthapur. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. The brief facts of the complainant are as under:-
The complainant/Government employee opened an account bearing No.11095745500 with the opposite party bank for his salary and other purposes and became customer of the said Bank. ATM card facility was provided to him to operate the said account and thus he started using ATM card bearing .No.6220180025000052172 . While the things thus stood on 23,3,2010 the Account of the complainant had shown 5 transactions with a debit of Rs.2430/-each totalling to Rs.12,150/- and Rs.3,510/- on 27.3.2010 grand totalling to Rs.15,660/-. On 27.3.2010 an amount of Rs.2,430/- has been credited in the said savings bank account of the complainant. Thus an amount of Rs.13,230/- was excessively debited from his account and he was surprised to see the said deduction of Rsw.13,250/- from his account. He made several representations to the opposite party bank to credit the said amount but in vain. Therefore, he got issued a legal notice dt.11.6.2010 to rectify the mistake and adjust the amounts so deducted but the opposite party bank gave reply stating that it is nothing to do with the transaction of POS and advised to approach the Cyber Police Station for redressal while furnishing the statement of account showing the alleged transactions. Wherein ATM cared No. is mentioned as 6220180025000050000 which does not belongs to the complainant. The said acts of the opposite party amount deficiency in service and hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to credit a sum of Rs.13,230/- into his S;B. Account afore said and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
The opposite party appeared through his counsel and filed counter denying the allegations made in the complainant and disputing the claim of the complainant. The brief facts of the counter are as under:-
The amount referred to in the complaint was drawn under POS (point of Sales) and it can be drawn by the opposite party. In order to draw such an amount PIN number is essential and unless the pin number is shown the amount cannot be drawn by anybody. The complainant or anybody who is aware of his PIN number and card number can meddle with the account of the complainant. There was news item in Eenadu daily dt.28.8.2010with regard to Cyber-crimes and it discloses the Cyber-crimes that were committed in the various places in Anantapur District. The opposite party has given suitable reply to the notice issued by the complainant.
However, there is mistake in the ATM card number in the statement given to the complainant along with the reply notice and it is only a typographical mistake and the said transaction pertains to account of the complainant and that the computer account statement filed along with counter establishes the same. In the addl. counter the opposite party contented that there is negligence on the part of the complainant in not maintaining the secrecy of pin number or card and it leads to cyber-crime. The complainant did not establish that he did not draw the amount and that the bank had drawn the same and that unless and until the amount is drawn with the help of ATM CARD question of debiting the amount does not arise. The operations done by the complainant or any customer with their ATM cards are not controlled by the opposite party bank. There is no deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party and the alleged loss of their complainant is on account of his own negligence and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
Both sides filed evidence affidavits re-iterating their contention ns of afore said. Ex.A.1 to A,.3 and Ex.B.1 &B.2 were marked on their behalf respectively.
Having heard both sides and considering the material on record vide impugned orders the district Forum dismissed the complaint without costs.
Aggrieved with the said order the complainant filed this appeal and mainly contended that having fully known that a cyber-crimes was committed by some body the opposite party ought to have referred the case of the complainant to the concerned investigating authority and instead of doing so the burden was shifted to the complainant to guard the black sheep of the bank who is aware of the pin number of the ATM of the complainant. and that giving the wrong ATM number while furnishing the account statement of complainant and trying to rectify the same by mentioning as type mistake itself amounts deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and that the opposite party admitted in the counter that an amount of Rs.2,430/- has been credited to the S.B.Account on 27.3.2010 the bank ought to have utilized the credit slip from where it springs from and that the acts of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service and that the District Consumer Forum did not appreciate the case of the complainant and thus prayed to set aside the impugned orders and consequently to allow the complaint.
Heard both side counsels with reference to their respecti8ve contentions and the learned counsel for the complainant filed writtne arguments.
Now, the point for co0nsideration is whether the order of the district forum is vitiated in law or on facts ?
There is no dispute the complainant/Government employee opened account bearing No.11095745500 with the opposite party bank for his salary and other purposes and became customer of the said bank. ATM card facility was provided to him to operate the said account and thus he started using ATM card bearing.No.6220180025000052172 and that on 23,3,2010 the Account of the complainant had shown 5 transactions with a debit of Rs.2430/-each totalling to Rs.12,150/- and Rs.3,510/- on 27.3.2010 grand totalling to Rs.15,660/-. On 27.3.2010 an amount of Rs.2,430/- has been credited in the said savings bank account of the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that Rs.13,230/- was excessively debited from his account. There is no dispute that he has issued legal notice dt.11.6.;2010 to rectify the mistake and to adjust the amount so deducted and that the opposite party gave reply stating that it is nothing to do with the transaction of POS and that advised to approach the cyber police station for redressal of the grievance.
When ATM card was issued in favour of the complainant he will be given secret PIN number and the ATM card holder is under an obligation not to revel his pin number to anyone. Possibility of family members or other kith and kin of the complainant knowing secret pin number cannot be ruled out and it is more possible also. For that the complainant has to be blamed but not any other person much less the bank officials. The complainant failed to establish with any convincing material that the pin number of his ATM card was known to the bank employees. He did not specifically plead that he did not credit Rs.2,430/- in his account on 27.3.2010 nor he instructed any of his family members to credit the said amount into his account. Therefore the contention of the complainant that the bank was responsible for such debit and credit entries into his account could not be appreciated when the bank advised the complainant it was the duty of the complainant to submit a complaint before the concerned investigating agency to investigate into the alleged cybercrime. But he did not do so. Had the bank officials were at fault certainly by requesting the complainant they would have taken the steps for rectification of the account. But in a transparent manner the bank advised the complainant to file the complaint for investigation of the cyber- crime.
The complainant did not establish with any convincing evidence that with regard to alleged cyber-crimes described in Eenaddu daily newspaper dft.22.8..2010 the bank officials lodged the complaint so as to fix such responsibility on the opposite party bank in this case. In order to use ATM card and to operate transactions of POS one must know account number and ATM number. There is no believable evidence from the complainants side that he kept the ATM safely so that the others may not know his pin number or card number. Even if his pin number was noticed by any other person the complainant had an opportunity to change his pin number and when he failed to maintain his secrete number he cannot allege the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. With regard to the mistake of ATM card number in the account statement furnished to the complainant the opposite party satisfactorily explained that it was typographical mistake or error and in that context it is not desirable to find fault with the opposite party for the negligence on the part of the complainant in not maintaining the secret of PIN number. The withdrawal of the amount is not from the ATM machine but they pertain to POS transaction and in such circumstances the contention of the complainant that it was the duty of the bank to verify the scanning cameras could not be appreciated. The District Forum discussed the matter in the correct manner and arrived at a right conclusion. The complainant did not establish his case that the opposite party rendered deficiency in service. The Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the orders of the District Forum. Both the parties shall bear their own costs, throughout.
MEMBER MEMBER 01-10-2012