IMPORTANT POINT
Bank is bound to send SMS to customers regarding ATM transactions.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Revision Petitioner against the Respondent as detailed above, under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Order dated 07.08.2019 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal (FA) No. 294 of 2018, in which the Order dated 04.09.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 16 of 2018 was challenged, inter alia, praying for setting aside the Impugned Order dated 07.08.2019 passed by the State Commission and allow the prayers made in CC No. 16 of 2018, filed by the Revision Petitioner.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was the Appellant and the Respondent Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) was the Respondent in the said FA before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was the Complainant and the Respondent was the Opposite Party before the District Forum in CC No. 16 of 2018. Notice was issued to the Bank 06.02.2020. The Parties filed written arguments/synopsis on 20.07.2023 and 21.07.2023 respectively.

3. Brief facts of the Case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that in order to operate his savings bank account, the Complainant was provided with an ATM Card by the Bank. On 27.07.2017, in the morning the Complainant went to withdraw a sum of Rs.6000/- from the ATM situated at Nai Sadak, Lashkar, Gwalior. On the said date itself at about, the Complainant went to another ATM of Bank to check balance in the account. When the Complainant was inside the ATM, two unknown persons entered into the ATM and offered help in getting the balance checked but failed to get the balance checked. The said persons returned some other ATM card to the Complainant and retained his card with them, which the Complainant did not notice. On 28.07.2017 at about 4.00 pm, the Complainant received a call on his mobile from the Bank asking him to check his account as some transactions were being carried out successively by his ATM card. Upon checking, the Complainant found that a total sum of Rs.5,07,017.22. was withdrawn from his account between 27.07.2017 and 28.07.2017 through various transactions. The Complainant immediately lodged complaints with the local police and other authorities, stating that he had kept the said amount in his savings account as his grand-daughter was likely to get married and in spite of the withdrawal limit of Rs.40,000/- within 24 hours, the Bank had allegedly allowed withdrawal of the aforesaid amount. The Complainant also filed the afore-noted CC before the District Forum, alleging that the Bank had committed deficiency in service by not sending SMS about any of the aforesaid transactions.

4. Vide Order dated 04.09.2018, the District Forum held that both the Complainant and the Bank were negligent for the aforesaid unauthorized transactions in the savings bank account of the Complainant and, therefore, partly allowed the CC and directed the Bank to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the total unauthorized transactions’ amount of Rs.5,07,017/- within 30 days, failing which interest @ 8% per annum was directed to be paid on the said amount.

5. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 04.09.2018 of the District Forum, the Complainant as well as the Bank appealed by way of FA No. 294 of 2018 and 371 of 2018 respectively in the State Commission and the State Commission vide the Impugned Order dated 07.08.2019 has dismissed both the FAs. The State Commission, inter alia, was of the opinion that the withdrawal limit of Rs.40,000/- was made effective from 10.10.2017 and in none of the transactions the amount exceeded the said limit but there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not sending SMS to the Complainant abo