Fraudulent transactions: Nationalised Bank asked to refund Rs. 55, 200 | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Nov 23, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Fraudulent transactions: Nationalised Bank asked to refund Rs. 55, 200

The Thane district consumer forum has held a nationalised bank liable for failing to block a customer’s ATM card even after she lodged a complaint about a fraudulent transaction.

mumbai Updated: Oct 17, 2014 22:30 IST
Kanchan Chaudhari

The Thane district consumer forum has held a nationalised bank liable for failing to block a customer’s ATM card even after she lodged a complaint about a fraudulent transaction.

The consumer forum has directed Canara Bank to reimburse Rs. 55,200 fraudulently withdrawn from the account of Badlapur resident Purva Jog, along with interest at 9% per annum from August 2010.

The forum also directed the bank to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the woman.

Jog has an account with the Badlapur branch of Canara Bank. According to her complaint, she visited the bank in July 2010 to update her passbook. She noticed that somebody had fraudulently withdrawn Rs. 200 from her account using her ATM card.

Jog immediately submitted a written complaint to the bank about the unauthorised use of her ATM card and requested bank officials to take necessary steps.

On August 20, 2010 she visited the bank again to update her passbook and found that Rs. 55,200 had been withdrawn from her account through unauthorised use of her ATM.

Jog then filed another complaint and sought a refund from the bank, claiming that she had not carried out the transactions.

The bank responded by stating that Rs. 55,400 was withdrawn by somebody at Montreal in Canada through four separate transactions. It added that the fradulent transactions could take place only because of negligence on part of the customer with regard to keeping her ATM PIN (Personal Identification Number) secret.

In May 2011, the woman approached the consumer forum and sought a refund as well as compensation. The bank reiterated that the customer was responsible for the fraudulent transaction.

The bench of forum president Umesh Jawalikar and member ND Kadam, however, held the bank liable for failing to take appropriate steps to block the ATM card after the complainant lodged a complaint about the first unauthorised and fradulent transaction.