Civil Judge (CJ) Ruchi Aggarwal rejected the plea of Georgia resident Viresh Nayar on the ground that he was unable to prove that he had not authorised any other person to use his ATM card.
While dismissing Nayar's plea, the court also refused to rely on the statement of a man, representing Nayar as his attorney in the case, on the gound that he could not have apprised the court of the facts which were in the personal knowledge of Nayar alone.
"...It is clear that he (Nayar's acquaintance) does not have any personal knowledge about the entire incident. He is only deposing what the plaintiff (Nayar) told him which is not permitted by law," the court said.
"The plaintiff (Nayar)...Has not been able to establish and prove that he had himself not authorised any person to use his ATM card," it said.
"Nor has he been able to prove that he had not received the renewed ATM card and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be held to have proved his case and consequentially, is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant (bank)," the court said.
Nayar had filed the plea against the Standard Chartered Bank for recovery of Rs 1.01 lakh saying that he was employed here with a media organisation and in 1998, he was holding an account in its south-Delhi based branch.
Nayar, in his petition, said he was using an ATM card for the account which was valid from August 1998 to August 2000 and he left his job here without changing his address and went to the USA to pursue regular studies in September 1998 and remained there till April 2001.
More From This Section
He said thereafter he again went back to USA while his ATM card had already expired in August 2000 and he neither asked the bank to renew nor issue fresh ATM card.
Nayar alleged that when in December 2001, he approached the bank with a request to withdraw the amount in it, he was informed that the money has already been withdrawn and there was an overdrawing balance of Rs 700 which he had to pay.
Nayar said that after he inquired from the bank about it, it was revealed that the money was withdrawn between September 2000 and October 2000 and during that period, he was in USA.
He alleged when he had left for USA, his account balance was over Rs 94,000 and it was withdrawn by some unauthorised person due to the negligence of the bank.
The bank contested Nayar's plea saying the ATM card was issued in his name and it was obligatory on his part to take care of the card and the pin number.
The bank said it was Nayar who was negligent in handling his ATM card and thus his plea should be dismissed.
It also alleged that Nayar had not informed it about his resignation or about his leaving the country and in absence of any such information, the bank was under no obligation to send any correspondence to any other address except the one already being furnished by the complainant.