Negligence of the bank in not timely locking the ATM card despite the complainant's requests constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

Mr. 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 On 03.10.2008 at 6:24 p.m., the complainant had withdrawn sum of Rs. 15,000/- from his account by use of ATM at the ATM machine situated within the premises of Railway Station, Haridwar.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in his account, he was informed that certain amount as mentioned in para 8 of the consumer complaint has been illegally withdrawn from his account on 03.10.2008 and 04.10.2008 respectively by use of ATM card and there is credit balance of Rs. 17/- in his account. It was alleged that sum of Rs. 17,700/- was illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant on account of negligence on the part of the bank, as the ATM card was not timely locked by the bank officials.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 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 in spite 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