National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bank Of India & Anr. vs Smt. Bilquis Bano on 25 November, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI IA/7366/2014 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 233 OF 2012 (From the order dated 02.11.2011 in First Appeal No. 770 of 2010 of the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal) (FOR EARLY HEARING) 1. Bank of India Head Office- Star House C-5, D Block, Bandar Kurla, Sakul Bandra, East Mumbai- 400051 2. Bank of India Satna Branch, Satna, District- Satna (M.P.), Through Branch Manager Petitioners Versus Smt. Bilquis Bano W/o Late Sh. A. J. Abidi, R/o- Nazirabad, Satna, District- Satna, M.P. Respondent IA/7367/2014 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 459 OF 2012 (From the order dated 02.11.2011 in First Appeal No. 1147 of 2010 of the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal) (FOR EARLY HEARING) 1. Bank of India Head Office- Star House C-5, D Block, Bandar Kurla, Sakul Bandra, East Mumbai- 400051 2. Bank of India Satna Branch, Satna, District- Satna (M.P.), Through Branch Manager Petitioners Versus Smt. Bilquis Bano W/o Late Sh. A. J. Abidi, R/o- Nazirabad, Satna, District- Satna, M.P. Respondent BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudarsh Menon, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. K. P. Singh, Advocate Mr. Shadman Ali, Advocate DATED: 25.11.2014 O R D E R JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The respondent/complainant opened a saving bank account with the petitioner, Bank of India. As on 30.03.2009, there was a credit balance of Rs. 4,36,433/- in the aforesaid saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant was having yet another account with the bank, where her salary used to be credited. The complainant was issued an ATM cum Debit Card by the petitioner Bank. The case of the petitioner Bank is that the ATM cum Debit Card was collected by the representative of the complainant from the branch, whereas the ATM pin was mailed to her on 22.03.2007. When the complainant sought to withdraw some cash from her account on 22.06.2009, she was informed by the bank officials that there was no balance left in her saving account. The matter was reported to the police, but no one was arrested. On collecting the statement of her account, the complainant came to know that a sum of Rs. 4,36,433/- had been withdrawn from the account on several dates between 20.04.2009 to 18.06.2009. This is also the case of the complainant that neither the ATM was collected by her from the branch nor has she authorised anyone to collect the said card on her behalf. The complainant has also denied receipt of the ATM pin alleged to have mailed to her by the Bank. 2. The complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking a direction to the Bank to pay him a sum of Rs. 4,70,425/- which at that time was alleged to be the money withdrawn from her account alongwith compensation amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank, inter-alia, on the ground that the complainant and her companion had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 4,69,500/- from her account through ATM cum Debit Card between 20.04.2009 to 18.06.2009. It was also stated in the reply that the companion of the complainant had covered his mouth with cloth, while withdrawing money from the ATM machine and only a sum of Rs. 925/- was left in the account on 18.06.2009. 4. The District Forum, vide its order dated 02.02.2010, directed the petitioner Bank to transfer a sum of Rs. 4,29,933/- in the account of the complainant and also pay interest to her at the rate of 9% per annum alongwith compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, the finding of the District Forum was that only a sum of Rs. 4,29,933/- had been withdrawn from the bank account of the complainant. 5. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner Bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since the complainant also was dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded to her, she also preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum. Vide impugned order dated 02.11.2011, the State Commission held that since there was a credit balance of Rs. 4,69,500/- in the account of the complainant and she had withdrawn Rs. 14,000/- out of the said amount and also noticing that the amount at the beginning was Rs. 4,36,433/- but was later inflated to Rs. 4,55,500/- held that the complainant was entitled to enhanced amount of Rs. 4,55,500/-. However, the direction for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant was set aside by the State Commission. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the Bank is before this Commission by way of these revision petitions. 6. The first question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the ATM Card used for withdrawing cash from the bank account of the complainant was received by her through her authorised representative or not. This is not the case of the petitioner bank that the ATM cum Debit Card was handed over personally to the complainant. The case put up by the learned counsel for the Bank is that the complainant deputed a representative to collect the said card and thereupon, the card was delivered to the representative of the complainant. On being questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank fairly states that they do not have any letter of authority from the complainant authorising the petitioner Bank to deliver the ATM cum Debit Card to the person who is alleged to have been taken delivery of the said card from the bank. In the absence of authorisation to this effect from the complainant, the petitioner Bank could not have delivered the ATM cum Debit Card to any person whosoever he/she might be. Therefore, the alleged delivery of the ATM cum Debit Card to the alleged authorised representative of the complainant without taking any authority letter from him by itself was an act of deficiency in services rendered by the Bank to the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner Bank also fairly concedes that they did not have any acknowledgment from the complainant as regards the receipt of the ATM cum Debit Card. It is thus quite evident that the said card was delivered by the petitioner Bank to an unauthorised person. 7. As regards the ATM pin, the case of the petitioner Bank is that it was sent to the complainant by mail. However the petitioner Bank has not been able to produce any acknowledgment signed by the complainant while receiving the said ATM pin. Therefore, there is no escape from holding that the petitioner Bank has failed to prove the delivery of the ATM pin to the complainant. 8. Had the petitioner Bank not handed over the ATM Card to an unauthorised person and had it taken acknowledgment from the complainant at the tie of alleged delivery of the ATM pin, it would have been possible for someone to misuse the ATM Card for the purpose of making withdrawals from the Bank account of the complainant. The aforesaid unauthorised withdrawal from the bank account of the complainant could be possible only on account of the negligence displayed by the petitioner Bank firstly by handing over the ATM Card to an unauthorised person and then delivering the ATM pin to a person whose identity the Bank could not establish. In fact, the petitioner Bank could not prove the delivery of the ATM pin to any person at all. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petitions. The said petitions are therefore dismissed. The petitioner Bank is directed to pay balance amount, if any, to the complainant within two weeks from today, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to execute the order of the State Commission to the extent it has not been complied. V. K. JAIN, J
PRESIDING MEMBER PSM/5&6