Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 8 (HP)

Tek Chand v. State Bank of India

2009-01-03

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, SAROJ SHARMA

body2009
ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) - 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 alongwith a copy of the F.I.R. 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 alongwith 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. 4. 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 No. was allotted to him. For determination of this appeal, it does not have any significance. 5. During the course of hearing, to our specific query, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank stated that money was withdrawn between 20.7.2005 to 6.8.2005 on the basis of the lost ATM card of the appellant. Thus, withdrawal according to Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank was either by the appellant himself or by someone at his instance to whom the former had divulged his secret Pin Code No. without which the money could not have been withdrawn. 6. Thus, withdrawal according to Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank was either by the appellant himself or by someone at his instance to whom the former had divulged his secret Pin Code No. without which the money could not have been withdrawn. 6. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter we are of the firm view that submission of learned Counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted being devoid of any merit. Admittedly, from the facts as detailed hereinabove atleast on 26.6.2005, even according to the respondent, it had been duly informed by the appellant that the ATM card had been lost and therefore it may be inactivated. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that had it been in fact inactivated but because of divulgence of secret Pin Code without which the lost ATM card could not be operated, having been divulged by the appellant, money was withdrawn either by the appellant himself or by someone at his instance. This plea is being noted to be rejected. Reason being that it being admitted case of the parties that the appellant had asked the respondent to inactivate the Card, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the submission of Mr. Sharma that even if Card had been inactivated amount could have been withdrawn by someone on the basis of the lost ATM card. If it is accepted, it will lead to disastrous consequences. Reason being that withdrawal of amount from the account was only possible because of non inactivation of the ATM card by the respondent-Bank. 7. Faced with this situation Mr. Sharma submitted that the appellant successfully delayed the registration of F.I.R. in this behalf by dilly dallying the matter. In addition to this, he also submitted that present complaint is a counter blast to the civil suit filed by his client which is pending in the Civil Court. So far pendency of Civil Suit is concerned, we say nothing because Civil Court will determine and adjudicate rights and liabilities of the parties on the basis of the material that will be produced before it. So far appellant being instrumental in delaying the registration of F.I.R. is concerned, again it has no relevance for the view that we have taken on the basis of admitted facts in this case. So far appellant being instrumental in delaying the registration of F.I.R. is concerned, again it has no relevance for the view that we have taken on the basis of admitted facts in this case. In case the appellant has committed any criminal offence, it hardly needs to be mentioned that law will take its own course. 8. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while setting aside the order of the District Forum, Kullu, in Complaint Case No. 160/2007 dated 24.3.2008, the said complaint is allowed and as a result of it, appellant is held entitled to Rs. 63,850/- from the respondent-Bank alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on this amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 4.12.2007 till the date of deposit/payment whichever is earlier alongwith cost in this appeal quantified at Rs. 3500/-. Complainant allowed. M.R.B. ———————