ANAND SARUP BHARDWAJ Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this Revision Petition No. 4791 of 2013 is the impugned order dated 26.09.2013 of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula ('State Commission' hereafter) in First Appeal No. 331/2013. Vide this order, the State Commission had upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon ('District Forum' hereafter) dated 01.04.2013 in Consumer Complaint No.958 of 2009. The District Forum, in turn, had found no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP bank and had consequently dismissed the complaint as having no merit.

(2.) Very briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant ('complainant' hereafter) had a savings bank account with the respondent/OP-Standard Chartered Bank since April 2006. He also had an ATM/Debit Card of the OP bank. When the complainant issued a cheque no.300384 dated 11.11.2008 for Rs.8,589/- in favour of Ambience Facilities Pvt. Ltd., his cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in his account on 28.11.2008. He obtained a statement of account from the bank and came to know that Rs.4,51,000/- had been withdrawn from his account during the period 25.10.2008 to 27.11.2008. He contacted the bank and on their advice lodged FIR No.355 dated 29.11.2008 with PS. DLF, Gurgaon. The case of the complainant is that these transactions were without his knowledge and that the OP had failed to send him SMS alerts for these withdrawals through ATM. It is also his case that he had lost his debit card, a loss he learnt about when he looked for it after his cheque was dishonoured on 28.11.2008. Since he did not get relief from the OP, he filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum, seeking refund of Rs.4,30,000/- with interest and a further sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation for harassment and pain suffered. This complaint was contested by the OP. It was submitted by the OP that the mobile banking facility was introduced in February, 2008 for all savings bank account holders. However, the account holders had to get themselves enrolled to avail the said facility. Since the complainant did not enrol, his savings account was not updated for extending mobile banking facility, and therefore, no SMS alerts were sent to him for any transaction. It was further submitted that ATM cash withdrawal required a person to be physically holding the debit card, and having the personal identification number (PIN). Without this, it was not possible to withdraw cash from ATM. It was further submitted that it was the responsibility of the customer/complainant to ensure safety of his card at all times and take immediate steps to report it's loss or misplacement to the bank to avoid any fraudulent transaction. Accordingly, when the OP was informed about the disputed transactions, it immediately blocked the said card. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

(3.) District Forum noted that the savings bank account holders of the OP were required to register themselves to avail this facility of mobile banking including SMS alerts. Admittedly, the complainant did not get himself registered as he was under the impression that being an account holder, he was automatically registered with the OP. This, however, reasoned the Forum, was an argument without any merit: