Security Lapse In Bank’s Premises Is Bank’s Responsibility, North-East Delhi Commission Orders PNB To Refund Cash, Compensation

Recently, the North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in service and ordered it to pay Rs refund the deposited amount and pay 30,000 as compensation to the complainant. The matter revolved around the complainant who deposited Rs. 40,000 in a cash deposit machine and received no receipt confirming the deposit. The District Commission reiterated that any security lapse within a bank's premises amounts to a deficiency in service, particularly when it leads to the loss of a customer's money within the bank premises. Brief facts of the case: Sarfraz Ali (“Complainant”) held an account with Punjab National Bank (“PNB”). On October 24, 2018, the Complainant visited a branch of PNB to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Upon arriving, PNB officials instructed him to deposit the cash through a machine located within the bank branch. He followed the instructions and deposited the cash into the machine, but to his concern, he did not receive any transaction slip or receipt confirming the deposit. The Complainant immediately approached PNB officials, expressing his distress about the missing receipt and the unconfirmed deposit. To address the issue, he wrote a letter to PNB officials explaining the situation. In response, PNB assured him that the deposited amount would be reflected in his account within 24 hours. However, despite this assurance, the money was not credited to his account within the stipulated timeframe. The Complainant visited PNB again the next day, only to be met with refusals for assistance from its officials. Furthermore, the PNB officials claimed that there was an excess amount of approximately Rs. 38,000/- in the machine. In light of these developments, the complainant reported the matter to the police on October 31, 2018. However, the police only lodged an FIR on November 20, 2018. In an attempt to resolve the issue, the complainant also wrote a letter to the Reserve Bank of India on November 1, 2018. Repeated visits to the police station were made by the Complainant to inquire about the status of the police investigation into the transaction. The officials of Delhi Police assured him that clarifications would be provided within one week. Additionally, the complainant approached PNB’s office on multiple occasions, requesting the return of the Rs. 40,000/-, but every time he was falsely assured by the officials. Consequently, the Complainant filed a consumer case in the North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”). PNB contended that the Complainant was negligent in operating the cash deposit machine. They argued that no bank staff instructed him to use the machine as alleged by the Complainant. They maintained that, based on CCTV footage and call logs, it is evident that the case involves miscreants who manipulated the Complainant into believing that the cash had been accepted by the machine and then absconded with the money. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission rejected PNB’s contention that miscreants were involved in manipulating the complainant into believing that the cash had been accepted by the machine. The District Commission referred to the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Rishab Kumar Sogani vs. State Bank Of India where the NCDRC established the principle that any security lapse within a bank's premises amounts to a deficiency in service, particularly when it leads to the loss of a customer's money within the bank premises. Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant and noted that the incident occurred within the premises of PNB, and as such, PNB owed a duty of care to the Complainant, particularly in ensuring the safety of his money. The District Commission directed the PNB to pay the Complainant the sum of Rs. 40,000/-, along with interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of the incident until the amount is recovered. Furthermore, PNB was ordered to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation and litigation costs, along with interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order until the amount is recovered. Case Title: Sarfraz Ali vs. Punjab National Bank Case No.: RBT/CC/267/2022 Advocate for the Complainant: None Advocate for the Respondent: None Click HereTo Read The Order

Security Lapse In Bank’s Premises Is Bank’s Responsibility, North-East Delhi Commission Orders PNB To Refund Cash, Compensation

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Security Lapse In Bank’s Premises Is Bank’s Responsibility, North-East Delhi Commission Orders PNB To Refund Cash, Compensation

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers