STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/285/2017 THE MANAGER,SBI PRESENT ADDRESS - STATE BANK OF INDIA,EAST HILL BRANCH, KOZHIKKODE, 673005 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus PRASEED KUMAR PRESENT ADDRESS - AISWARYA ANUGRAHA, EDAKKADU.P.O, KOZHIKKODE, 673005 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 26/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.285/2017 JUDGEMENT DATED: 26.06.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.555/2014 on the files of DCDRC, Kozhikode)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

The Manager, State Bank of India, East Hill Branch, Kozhikode – 673

005 (by Advs. R.S. Kalkura & M.S. Kalesh)

Vs

RESPONDENT:

Praseed Kumar, Aiswarya Anugraha, Edakkadu P.O., Kozhikode – 673

005

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C.No.555/2017 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (for short ‘the District Commission’).

2. On 09.02.2017 the complaint was allowed by the District Commission and directed the opposite parties to deposit Rs.18,200/-(Rupees Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred only) with interest @12% from the date of incident to the account of the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed.

4. The complainant had filed the complaint on an allegation that he was having an SB account with the opposite party bearing No.10159060736. ATM card was issued by the bank to the complainant on 14.01.2004 bearing No.B220180226000004631. The complainant alone was using the card and he never furnished the PIN number of the card to anyone else. He never travelled outside the limits of Kozhikode district. On 11.12.2013, when he was at home a message was received on his mobile phone that Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and Rs.3,200/-(Rupees Three Thousand Two Hundred only) has been withdrawn from his account using the ATM card.

5. On the next morning, he took the mini statement of his account using the ATM card and found that the message was true and the amount was withdrawn from his account. Subsequently, he filed a complaint before the opposite party. According to him, when the card was in his possession somebody had withdrawn money from his account without his knowledge or permission and such a withdrawal had taken place on account of the carelessness of the opposite party in not providing adequate safety measures in the ATMs to protect and safeguard the money deposited by their customers. Even after filing the complaint, the opposite party did not return the amount. Hence, he would seek for an order directing the opposite party to pay back Rs.18,200/-(Rupees Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred only) along with compensation of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only).

6. The opposite party entered appearance and filed a written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable on the reason that the complaint filed by the complainant before the Ombudsman seeking the same relief was dismissed. However, the opposite party would admit that the complainant has SB account at their Nadakkavu Branch to whom an ATM card was also issued. The ATM card was issued after providing all identity proof which was given in sealed cover with a written instruction that he has the right to return the ATM PIN, if he suspects that the sealed cover is tampered with. The complainant had accepted the same which means that there was no tampering in the sealed cover issued to the complainant.

7. The PIN is so secret and only the complainant knows the number, thereby the bank had taken so many safeguards to prevent the unauthorised use of the card. The amount could be withdrawn using the card only if the person holding the card knows the PIN. Wh