TEK CHAND Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
ARUN KUMAR GOEL -
(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) FACTS as they emerge from the record of this case are that the appellant was having facility of ATM card for withdrawal of money from such machines of the respondent -bank. Appellant claims that he lost the ATM Card and his driving licence. His further case is that he informed the Bank about the loss of ATM Card and also lodged report with the Police about this loss. Appellant also claims that he had informed the Bank on 16.6.2005 along with a copy of the FIR.
(3.) AT the time of hearing of this appeal, learned Counsel for the respondent -bank stated that it was not on 16.6.2006 but on 26.6.2006 that the intimation regarding loss of ATM along with F.I.R. was provided by the appellant to the respondent -bank. It is also not disputed between the parties that the appellant had asked the respondent -bank to inactivate the ATM Card with a view to ensure that it is not misused by someone.
While contesting the claim of the appellant, stand of the respondent -bank was that the appellant had divulged his Pin Code No. to someone and being a tour leader of trekkers possibility of his having divulged the same to a third party is also there. Thus, according to the respondent, the withdrawal of the amount was with the active connivance of the appellant. Further according to the learned Counsel for the respondent there is no fault on the part of his client. It may also be noted by way of passing reference that after the loss of ATM card as noted hereinabove, on the request of the appellant, a new ATM card with fresh and secret Pin Code number was allotted to him. For determination of this appeal, it does not have any significance.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.