Case Law Details
M.S. Bakankar Vs State Bank of India (NCDRC)
Zero Liability of consumer in events involving contributory negligence on the part of the Bank pertaining to unauthorized transactions
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the National Commission while relying upon the RBI Circular dated July 6, 2017 observed that there will be zero liability of a customer where the unauthorized transaction occurs in events involving contributory negligence on the part of the Bank and have accordingly allowed the Petition.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition (RP) has been filed against the Respondent, 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.
Brief facts of the Case 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. On the said date, 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 was withdrawn from his account between 27.07.2017 and 28.07.2017 through various transactions.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 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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
