STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA No. 188 of 2017
AGAINST
CC NO.59 of 2015, DISTRICTFORUM III, HYDERABAD
Between :
1. The Manager, Axis Bank Limited
6-3-879, B First Floor,
G.Pulla Reddy BL Greenlands,
Begumpet Road, Hyderabad,
Telangana – 500 016.
2. The Managing Director,
Axis Bank Limited,
“Trishul” Third Floor,
Opp. Samartheshwar Temple,
NR.Law Garden,
Ellisbridge,
Ahmedabad – 380 006. ……. Appellants/Opposite Parties
And
Sai Sandeep Bhosle,
8-8-181, B-363,
Road No.13, Saroornagar,
Green park colony,
Karmanghat, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500 035. ……. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants/opposite parties : Sri Mohammed Habibullah
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant : Party-in-person
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Friday, the Twenty Second Day of September
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant to set aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2016 made in CC No 59 of 2015 on the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad and allow the appeal.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is the Account holder bearing No.912010043680020 under power premium scheme with the Opposite Party No.1 bank. On 01-07-2014 fraudulently an amount of Rs.5,099/- was debited from his bank account even though the debit card was in his possession but he did not receive any alert message. He made request to the Customer Care to block his card and filed complaint to the opposite parties. He was assured by their executive stating that they would investigate into the matter and money would be refunded to him, but till date, neither he had received any money nor any kind of response from the opposite parties. After a month, the Complainant had unblocked his debit card. But again the fraudulent transaction was occurred through his card on 08-08-2014, a sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) was debited from his bank account. He made complaint to the bank again. Subsequently, he was told by their executive that this transaction was made via internet banking. He informed them that the internet banking option was blocked by him therefore, the aforementioned amount could not be debited through this medium from this bank account. He sent a letter dated 14-09-2014 to the opposite parties but no response. Hence the complaint
4). The 1st opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, which was adopted by second opposite party, contending that the Complainant never made out any case to explain as to how a third person can withdraw the cash through ATM when the card is held in possession of the Complainant. No amount can also be withdrawn through internet banking unless the depositor shares the password with somebody else. However, at the request of the Complainant, the Opposite Party bank blocked the card and acknowledged the event promptly. In fact, the Complainant gave complaint at their Champapet Branch on 05-07-2014 and they registered the same under the head –ECOM FRAUD on 08-07-2014, investigated into the matter and found no substance in the complaint and accordingly closed the complaint on 09-07-2014 communicating that the disputed transaction is a successful Ecom Transaction (Master Secure) done by entering user ID and password available only with the cardholder. The transaction has been successfully claimed by the Merchant Acquiring Bank. Since these are done in secure environment with UCAF Indicator 212 there are no disputed rights and cardholder is liable to pay the charges. On 08-08-2014 as alleged by him there is no debit entry of Rs.8,000/- in his account. After seeking closure of the account on 26-08-2014 the Complainant lost customer dealings as well as contractual relationship with the Opposite Party bank and as on the date of filing the Complainant, he is not a customer of the bank and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A- 3 and the opposite parties filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B 1 to B6. Both sides have filed their respective written arguments. Heard the counsel on both sides.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite parties to credit the amount of Rs.13,000/- , to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.3,000/-.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8) Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof, along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is the Account holder bearing No. 912010043680020 of the opposite parties’ Bank. The dispute is with regard to fraudulent debit entry of an amount of Rs.5,099/- on 01.07.2014 though the Debit card was with him and another amount of Rs.8,000/- on 08.08.2014, even after blocking the Card, from the Account of the respondent/complainant. On the complaints of the complainant, the appellants/ opposite parties, after investigation, with regard to the transaction on 01.7.2014 for an amount of Rs.5,099/-, informed him that there was no fraud and it was successful Ecom Transaction done by entering user ID and password available only with the card holder and there is no debit entry of Rs.8,000/- on 08.09.2014 in the account of the respondent/complainant as alleged. The District Forum opined that the appellants bank did not alert the respondent/complainant by way of messages when the unusual transactions had taken place and further did not file any CC TV footage to rebut the allegation of the respondent/complainant and hence came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on their part with regard to the above two transactions.
11). We have perused the Statement of Accounts vide Ex. A1 for the period from 01.04.2015 to 11.08.2014 and Ex, B3 for the period from 01.07.2014 to 05.03.2015, which, disclose that on 01.07.2014 six transactions were executed while debiting a sum of Rs.5,099/- within few minutes varying from Rs.100 to Rs.1000/-. Counsel for the appellant argued that the District Forum ignored the status report vide Ex. B-2, wherein, it is clearly stated that “ the disputed transaction mentioned by respondent/complainant is a successful Ecom Transaction ( Master Secure) done by entering user ID and Password available only with the cardholder. The transaction has been successfully claimed by the Merchant Acquiring Bank. Since they are done in secure environment with UCAG indicator 212 there are no disputed rights. Hence no dispute/charge back can be raised and card holder is liable to pay the charges. In fact, the respondent/complainant ought to have resorted to police compliant since the appellants/opposite parties have given the information with regard to the transaction. Since the respondent/complainant is the customer of the appellants bank and gave complaint with regard to the fraudulent debit of the amount from his account, they ought to have resorted to extract complete details of the fraudster and take necessary steps to get back money but they did not do so.
12). With regard to debit entry of Rs.8,000/- the appellants/opposite parties argued that there was no transaction of Rs.8000/- reflected through his account on 8.8.2014. But the statement of Account clearly shows 9 debit entries were made for an amount of Rs.8,000/- on 09.08.2014, The contention of the respondent/complainant is that the said amount was debited after internet banking operation was blocked on 11.08.2014 at 18.00.19. It is their responsibility to enquire into the details of the transactions, found the fraudster and take necessary steps to enable the respondent/complainant to get back his money. The further argument of the appellants/opposite parties is that CC camera footage will be made available only in case of ATM transactions is relevant. No CC camera footage will be recorded when an online transaction is done from the card holder’s place or the card is operated before any Merchant Establishment.
13). It appears from the above, the above transactions took place before blocking of the Internet banking and the fraud had occurred through Internet banking. Though, his Account was closed with the appellants’ bank, since the fraud was committed while he was their Account holder, it is their responsibility to find out the details of the fraudster and take necessary steps to get back his money. Consumers should be very careful in making Net Banking Transactions. When the fraud had occurred and informed the same to the Bank, though knowing fully well, without taking necessary steps to get back his money by the Bank to their customer amounts to deficiency in service.
14). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties’ bank in not taking steps to get back money of the respondent/complainant and hence they are liable to comply with the impugned order and recover the same from the fraudsters with the cooperation from the respondent/complainant. This Commission answered Point No. 1, accordingly.
15). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order with the above observations. There shall be no order to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated : 22.09.2017.
