State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of Patiala vs Pushpa Devi on 31 October, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1774 OF 2011
Date of Institution: 02.12.2011
Date of Decision: 31.10.2013
1. State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through
its Chief Managing Director.
2. State Bank of Patiala, Branch S.D. College, Barnala, through its
Branch Manager.
3. State Bank of Patiala, Complaint Cell, Head Office The Mall,
Patiala through its General Manager (O) S Sectt.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
VERSUS
Pushpa Devi wife of Mr.Girdhari Lal, R/o H.No.B-XI/30, K.C.Road,
Near Nirankari Bhawan, Barnala.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 19.10.2011 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Barnala.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellants : Sh.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Sarvinder Goyal, Advocate BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to credit Rs.8,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. First Appeal No. 1774 of 2011 Page 2 of 9 They were further burdened with the consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
2. The facts of the case, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was having a saving bank account No.55029562595 with opposite party No.2. On 1.1.2011, she intended to withdraw an amount of Rs.8,000/- from her account and, as such, at about 12:15 AM, after checking the credit balance in her account vide transaction No.907, she tried to withdraw this amount from her account through her ATM card but the said transaction remained unsuccessful. She again tried to withdraw the said amount of Rs.8,000/- through her ATM on the same date at about 12:20 PM and the second transaction No.914 remained successful. When she got the passbook of her account completed, she came to know that amount of Rs.8,000/- had been debited twice to her account. She submitted an application to opposite party No.2 and requested for reversing one debit entry in her account but to no useful result. Thereafter, she submitted an application to opposite party No.3 on 21.2.2011 whereupon she received a letter dated 2.3.2011 from it informing her as under:-
"We acknowledge the receipt of your complaint and has been noted at Sr.No.5065600115. We are examining the issue and shall revert back to you shortly. Kindly bear with us. You may quote the above number for any further reference in future."
However, no action was taken either by opposite party No.3 or by opposite party No.2. Another complaint was submitted by her to opposite party No.2 on 7.4.2011, copy of which was endorsed to opposite party No.3 but still no action was taken by them. Alleging First Appeal No. 1774 of 2011 Page 3 of 9 deficiency in service, she filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties to reverse debit entry of Rs.8,000/- made in her account. Costs and compensation were also prayed.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed joint written reply pleading therein that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious and liable to be dismissed with costs. It was admitted that the complainant on 1.1.2011 at about 12:15 PM checked the credit balance in her account vide transaction No.907 and that an amount of Rs.8,000/- was withdrawn from her account with ATM card from ATM machine No.DS10K500656002 at 12:20 PM vide transaction No.914. Rests of the averments made by her were denied. They pleaded that two ATM machines are fixed in the ATM room of the opposite parties having account ID No.S10K500656002 and ID No.S10A500656001. The complainant withdrew another amount of Rs.8,000/- from ATM machine No. S10A500656001 vide transaction No.1738 at about 12:23 PM. Both the transactions were successful and she withdrew Rs.8,000/- each from both the ATM machines on the same day within a gap of three minutes. As per JP Log Book of the ATM machines, no transaction was unsuccessful. The amount of both the transactions was correctly debited to the saving bank account of the complainant. They further pleaded that the complainant has concocted a false story after she received Rs.16,000/- from her saving account on the same day from both the ATM machines vide transactions Nos.914 and 1738. However, on the request of the complainant, opposite party No.2 checked the ATM accounts and satisfied her by showing the First Appeal No. 1774 of 2011 Page 4 of 9 copy of the JP Log Book. Then higher officers conducted separate enquiry and informed the complainant, vide letter dated 4.4.2011, that both the transactions were successful. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the complaint in the terms referred above.
5. Aggrieved by this order, the opposites parties have come up in appeal on the ground that the District Forum has erred in not considering the specific stand taken by them. The complainant has concocted a false story after receiving an amount of Rs.16,000/- from her saving account on the same day from both the ATM machines, vide transactions No.914 and 1738. Even their higher officers, after enquiring into the matter, informed her vide letter dated 4.4.2011 that both the entries were successful. It is impossible that another person would withdraw the amount without ATM card and its PIN as the both were in the possession of the complainant. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence has been lead to demolish the stand taken by the bank duly supported by the documentary evidence. The acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record. First Appeal No. 1774 of 2011 Page 5 of 9
8. The complainant, in her complaint, has contended that she operated the ATM machine with the help of her ATM card twice and her first attempt to withdraw Rs.8,000/- from her account was unsuccessful vide transaction No.907 whereas she succeeded in withdrawing Rs.8,000/- on her second attempt against the transaction No.914. This contention of the complainant is not sustainable in the face of evidence led by herself. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the print out against transaction No.907. Careful scrutiny thereof shows that in this transaction, which took place at 12:15 PM, only statement of account was obtained and even no command for withdrawal of any amount was given as the print out only contains statement for the period 1.12.2009 to 31.12.2009 with available balance of Rs.54,440.38. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the print taken out by her after making the transaction No.914 at 12;20 PM from ATM machine No. S10K500656002. This transaction has been admitted to be successful by the complainant herself. This was, in fact, the first and not the second attempt to withdraw Rs.8,000/-. Thus, her contention that first transaction was unsuccessful is not tenable. From the evidence led by the opposite parties it stands proved that after making two transactions No.907 and 914 from the ATM machine No.S10K500656002, second machine was also operated by her at 12:23 PM. The JP Log of second machine No.S10A500656001 (Ex.R-3) shows the transaction No.1738 transacted at 12:23 PM was successful, vide which card holder withdrew Rs.8,000/- with available balance of Rs.38,440.38. When the complainant made earlier two transactions with her ATM card from 1st machine, it cannot be believed that third transaction from the First Appeal No. 1774 of 2011 Page 6 of 9 second ATM machine can be made fraudulently by anyone else without the use of the ATM card and the PIN, which was in her personal custody. It is not the case of the complainant that she gave the card to anybody else or disclosed PIN to someone else. Therefore, there was no possibility of any transaction made by a third person. The opposite parties have also proved on record the statement of account as Ex.R-4 in which Rs.8,000/- each has been shown as withdrawn on 1.1.2011 against transactions No.914 and 1738. The complainant was duly informed about the said transactions by opposite party No.2 on 5.4.2011 (Ex.R-5). Similarly, Zonal Office of the opposite parties bank also informed the complainant on 4.4.2011 about the factual position. The complainant has not mentioned in her complaint that both the machines were used by her. There is no evidence on record to show that third transaction was made by anybody else accept the complainant herself. In case Rs.8,000/- were withdrawn through transaction No.914, as alleged by the complainant, there was no need to make transaction No.1734 from the second machine.
9. As per the guidelines issued by the bank for the use of the ATM card to the card holders the following precautions are required to be taken:-
"(a) PIN: The PIN is used for withdrawing cash at an ATM.
The PIN should be safeguarded carefully. Using the wrong PIN three times will invalidate the card for the rest of the day. PIN change option is available at Branches or any SBI Group ATM across the world. While selecting a PIN, the cardholder is First Appeal No. 1774 of 2011 Page 7 of 9 advised to avoid a PIN which can be easily associated with him/her (e.g. telephone number, date of birth etc.) Besides, the selected PIN value should not comprise:
A sequence from the associated account numbers A string of the same number Historically significant dates It is the cardholder's responsibility to ensure that the knowledge of the PIN/PIN Mailer does not fall into any other person's hands. The Bank bears no liability for the unauthorized use of the card. The responsibility is fully that of the cardholder. If you suspect that the PIN is divulged, you can change the PIN by visiting a State Bank Group ATM. If you are not in the position to visit a State Bank ATM, please ensure that the card always remains in your possession till a new PIN is received. You can apply for a new PIN through the Contact Centre / Branch. The PIN will be generated after verifying the identity of the cardholder (in the manner as described in case of lost card below) and delivered through his Branch in the manner as is done in case of delivery of the card and earlier PIN."
Thus, in case some unauthorised person, other than the card holder, withdraws the money with the ATM card fraudulently, the acquiring bank cannot be held responsible.
10. The opposite parties have clearly proved from the JP Log that all the three transactions, including the two, whereby Rs.8,000/- each was withdrawn, was successful. The transaction report generated by First Appeal No. 1774 of 2011 Page 8 of 9 the ATM is binding on the complainant and the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for any lapse on the part of the complainant or misuse by any unauthorised person.
11. The District Forum has allowed the complaint only on the ground that CCTV footage was not provided to establish the facts. Hon'ble National Commission in a similar case with identical facts reported as "State Bank of India V/s K.K.Bhalla" II (2011) CPJ 106 (NC) has held as under:-
"We are not convinced by this reasoning of either the District Forum or the State Commission, particularly, in view of the fact that merely because the CCTV was not working on those dates and its footage was thus not available, does not mean that the money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using the ATM Card and the PIN number. In case the ATM Card had been stolen or the PIN number had become known to persons other than ATM card holder then the CCTV coverage could have helped in identifying the persons who had fraudulently used the card. In the instant case it is not disputed that the ATM Card or PIN remained in the self-custody/knowledge of the Respondent. In view of elaborate procedure evolved by the Petitioner/Bank to ensure that without the ATM Card and knowledge of the PIN number, it is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorised person from an ATM, we find it difficult to accept the Respondent's contention. No doubt there have been cases of fraudulent withdrawal as stated by the State Commission but the circumstances of those cases may not be First Appeal No. 1774 of 2011 Page 9 of 9 the same as in this case and in all probability, these fraudulent withdrawals occurred either because the ATM Card or the PIN number fell in wrong hands."
12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission and the above discussion, the appeal of the appellants/opposite parties, is accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. The appellants/opposite parties deposited an amount of Rs.7,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the appellant/opposite party No.2, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft, after expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
14. The arguments in the case were heard on 21.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER October 31, 2013 VINAY