KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD Vs. SURINDER KUMAR MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, we propose to dispose the above noted cross revision petitions arising out of the order of the State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dated 30.04.2010.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petitions are that Surinder Kumar Modi, complainant, was having a bank account with opposite party Kotak Mahindra Bank. He was holder of Gold Debit Card with facility of daily withdrawal and purchase limit of Rs.1.75 lac. International operation facility was also available on the card. On 05.08.2008 complainant went to Great Britain. On 25.08.2008 complainant used ATM of Lloyds T.S.B. at South Hall, London for withdrawal of money. The complainant after inserting the debit card, entered password to complete the transaction of withdrawal of money but the ATM failed to remit the money. Thus, the complainant cancelled the operation. He again tried to withdraw the money but card got struck in the ATM machine and no money was remitted. The complainant thus rushed to the Llyods Bank and told the officials regarding the above noted series of events and the concerned official advised him to get the card and funds blocked as the card may be hacked and used illegally by the miscreants. It is alleged by the complainant that he then called respondent no.3 Gulbir Singh, Senior Manager of the bank and gave instructions to block the card and funds immediately. Opposite Party no.3 told him that his card will be blocked immediately and no one will be able to withdraw the money. At 10.15 AM ( UK time), the complainant again called opposite party no.3 seeking confirmation of status of the card and opposite party no.3 assured him that instructions to block the card had been given and he would be sending e -mail as a cautionary step. Despite the assurance of opposite party no.3, the complainant visited the branch of Llyods T S B Bank and narrated the incident of 25.08.2008 to their officials, namely , Ms. Palvi and requested her to return the card. Ms. Palvi told him that there was no provision for returning the card. It was further alleged that on 27.08.2008, the complainant received SMS on his mobile phone that balance in his account was Rs.307/ - whereas balance in the account of the complainant on 25.08.2008 when his debit card was retained in the ATM was Rs.4,76,500/ -. According to the complainant, the failure of the opposite parties to block the operation of his card amounts to deficiency in service. Thus, the complaint.

(3.) THE opposite parties resisted the complaint. In the written statement, they admitted that complainant had a bank account with the opposite party and he was issued debit card with facility of daily withdrawal and purchase limit of Rs.1.75 lac with international transaction. It was pleaded that with every such card of high transaction limit, user manual is supplied to the customer. The opposite parties denied for want of knowledge that on 25.08.2008, the complainant used ATM card at ATM machine of Llyods T S B at South Hall, London or that said transactions failed and his card got struck in the machine. However, it was admitted that on 25.08.2008, the complainant called up opposite party no.3 Gulbir Singh Bindra, Manager of the opposite party bank Branch at Goraya. It was pleaded that on the said day, the complainant informed Ms. Arvind Kaur, an employee of the opposite party bank only about his card having retained in the ATM machine but did not make any request for blocking of his card. It was also alleged that Ms. Arvind Kaur suggested to the complainant to get his card blocked but the complainant insisted that his password was secured and blocking of the card would cause unnecessary harassment to him during his stay abroad. It was also alleged that complainant is an ex -bank officer and was very well aware of banking rules and regulations and he could have sent an e -mail to the bank giving instructions for blocking of his card but he did not do so. According to the opposite parties, on inquiry, it was revealed that ATM card of the respondent was used more than 20 times between 25.08.2008 to 27.08.2008 at different locations and, therefore, the claim of the complainant that his card got struck in the machine is false and that complainant had failed to provide ATM machine number in which his card was retained. It was also pleaded that complainant vide his letter dated 19.09.08 appreciated the efforts of the opposite party bank and the bank was not at fault. Thus the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.