Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was having Bank A/c No. 02580140004736 with appellant No. 2 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Nakodar. He was also having Kotak Mahindra Bank Gold Debit Card/ATM No. 4283482000009654 in which facility of daily withdrawl and purchase limit of Rs. 1.75 lac was provided. Respondent had used this card by following the guidelines/users manual issued by the appellants. The card was issued with the facility of international operations and for using the card in all the major countries of the world and in all known banks. On 5.8.2008, respondent had gone to Great Britain for two months. On 25.8.2008, he used the ATM of Lloyds T.S.B. at South Hall, London for withdrawing the money. He inserted his card and entered the password but no cash/money was remitted from the ATM then he cancelled all his operations. He tried again but of no use as the card was remained in the ATM machine. He rushed to Lloyds Bank and told the official regarding the entire series of events and after that official advised him to get the card and funds blocked as the card may not be hacked and used illegally by miscreants. Then the respondent called appellant No. 3 at 3.47 P.M.(UK Time) and apprised about the whole episode and also informed about his apprehension of hacking of his card. He had given instructions to appellant No. 3 to block his card and funds immediately so that his card may not be mis-used by any unscrupulous elements as incidents of hacking the card are common over there. Appellant No. 3 assured him that his card will be blocked immediately and none will be able to withdraw the money. At 10.15 AM (U.K. Time), the respondent had again called to appellant No. 3 regarding confirming the status of his card and also freezing of his card and funds. On this, appellant No. 3 told that instructions to block the card had been given but he would be sending the e-mail as cautionary step and liability of the bank starts and that of the consumer ceases. Despite assurance of appellant No. 3, he visited the branch of Lloyds T.S.B. Bank and narrated the happenings of 25.8.2008 to the official namely, Palvi, and requested for the return of the card but she told that there was no provision of returning the card. On 27.8.2008, the respondent had switched on his Indian Mobile. He was shocked to receive SMS that the balance in his account was only Rs. 307/-. It was pleaded that before retention of his card in ATM on 25.8.2008, his account balance was Rs. 4,76,500/-.

4. Appellants replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was filed with malafide designs, as such, respondent was estopped to file the complaint by his own act and conduct. It was admitted that the respondent had bank account with the appellant and ATM cum Debit Card was issued with the purchase and withdrawl of cash limit of Rs. 1,75,000/- per day with international transactions. It was pleaded that with every such card of high transaction limit, user manual was supplied to the customers. It was denied for want of knowledge that the respondent had visited Great Britain on 5.8.2008 and inserted his ATM Card in the ATM Machine of Lloyds T.S.B. at South Hall, London and that ATM was retained in the ATM Machine or he had filed any complaint to the official of the Lloyds Bank. But it was admitted that on 25.8.2008, the respondent called up Mr. Gulbir Singh Bindra, Manager, Bank Goraya appellant No. 3 and Ms. Arvind Kaur of the Sales Team but not lodged any request for blocking the debit card. It was pleaded that while talking to Ms. Arvind Kaur, respondent did not make any request for blocking of his card but only informed that his card had been retained in the ATM Machine of Lloyds Bank, which he shall however get it on the next working day. Ms. Arvind Kaur had suggested the respondent to get his card blocked but the respondent stated that his password was secure and nobody knows it and blocking of the same cause unnecessary harassment to him during his stay at abroad. It was denied that there was any specific instruction issued by the respondent to block his card as such, the card was not blocked. Respondent, who was an ex-bank officer was very well aware of the banking rules and regulations and could have sent an e-mail to the bank and giving instructions for blocking his card or should had followed the procedure prescribed in this regard. On enquiry, it was revealed that ATM Card of the respondent was used more than 20 times between 25.8.08 to 27.8.08 at different locations, as such, claim of the respondent that his card got retained by the machine appears to be frivolous. Respondent had also failed to provide ATM machine number in which his card was retained. It was pleaded that vide letter dated 19.9.08 the respondent appreciated the efforts of the appellants bank and accepted that appellants Bank was not at fault. It was denied that the appellants were deficient in rendering service and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.

11. On the other hand, it was admitted by the appellants that the telephone calls were received from the respondent by appellant No. 3 as well as by Ms. Arvind Kaur. Respondent had narrated the whole episode regarding that his card had been retained by ATM machine of Lloyds Bank but he had not instructed for the blocking of the debit card, as such, there was no fault of the appellants for not blocking the debit card of the respondent. The respondent himself was responsible for the withdrawl of the amount of Rs. 4,76,000/- from his account through debit card by any unscrupulous person. The respondent had failed to follow the guidelines regarding the use of the debit card, which were supplied by the appellants to the respondent at the time of issuance of the debit card in dispute.

On 25.08.2008 the Complainant did call up Mr. Gulbir Singh Bindra of our Bank and asked for the number of Ms. Arvind Kaur of the Sales Team. The Complainant did not lodge any request for blocking of the card. It is further submitted that while talking to Ms. Arvind Kaur also the Complainant did not make any request for blocking of the card but, only apprised her that his card has been retained by the ATM machine of Lloyds bank, however he shall get it on the next working day. In fact, it was Ms. Arvind Kaur who suggested the Complainant to get his card blocked but, on this the Complainant clarified that his password is secure and nobody knows it and blocking of the same would cause unnecessary harassment to him during his stay abroad.