PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 134/2023
Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,
Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,
Amit Kumar Pradhan,
S/o- Kusha Pradhan,
R/O-Bargarh W.No.18, Near Rotary Public School, Bargarh
PO/PS/Dist-Bargarh-768028. ….…......Complainant.
-Vrs.-
- Branch Manager, Bandhan Bank, Bargarh
V.S.S. Nagar Chowk(Bandhutikra)
PO/PS/Dist-Bargarh-768028.
- C.E.O., Bandhan Bank, Floors 12-14,
Adventz Infinity@5BN5, Sector-V Salt Lake City,
Kolkata-700091. …………........Opp.Parties
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Sri. S.N. Padhi & Associates
- For the O.P.s :- Sri. A.K. Das & Associates
Date of Filing:04.09.2023,Date of Hearing :16.01.2024,Date of Judgement :12.02.2024
Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is having a S.B. A/C No. 50180020308814 with the O.Ps and opted for cheque facilities and no any online transaction facilities have been taken. On 23.08.2023 at about 2.32 PM. One unknown call came to Complainant and asked for bank details but it was provided. At about 2.49 P.M. the O.P. No.1 telephoned the Complainant that if any call comes then to answer him that the B.M. has discussed. At about 5.30 PM a mobile message came and first Rs. 4.00 lakhs then Rs. 1.50 lakhs and lastly Rs. 2.00 lakhs were withdrawn from the account of the Complainant. Complainant immediately contacted the O.P. but the O.P. remained silent.
On 24.08.2023 at about 9.30 A.M. a F.I.R. was lodged before the I.I.C Town P.S. vide F.I.R. No. 0531 dated 23.08.2023 and police started investigation. On contact to O.P. No.1 on 24.08.2023 the O.P. gave a form and stated to sign the same to claim the amount and assured to refund within 90 days. With collusive action with fraudsters the O.Ps harassed the Complainant and Complainant sustained financial loss. The O.Ps are having a branch at Sambalpur hence filed the case which is within the jurisdiction of O.P. No.2. Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.
- The O.Ps in their version submitted that the Complaint is criminal in nature and not maintainable before this Commission as consumer dispute. The complaint is bad for joinder of necessary parties and suffers from territorial Jurisdiction. The cause of action arose at Bargarh. The allegation made are denied. Once the Bank is appraised of fraudulent transaction, the O.P. no.1 took steps to freeze the disputed account so that further transactions can not be made by the fraudsters and rest of the amount will be safe.
On 24.08.2023 the complain form was signed by Complainant to enquire into the matter and would try to find out the truth. For his own mistake the fraudsters succeeded in their motive and withdrawn the amount. The allegation of collusive action are denied. Due to carelessness of Complainant who has provided the O.T.P. and other necessary information fraud has been committed and accordingly the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.
- The Complainant filed the following documents:
- Copy of F.I.R. No. 0531 dated 24.08.2023.
- Copy of Bank detailed of O.Ps.
- Copy of account statement.
- Copy of message dated 23.08.2023.
The O.Ps have filed mobile activation details:
- After perusal of the statement of the parties and documents the following issues are framed:
-
- Is the Complaint not maintainable before Sambalpur Commission and not a consumer dispute?
- Is there any deficiency on the part of O.Ps?
- What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?
Issue No.1 :- Is the Complaint not maintainable before Sambalpur Commission and not a consumer dispute?
It is the admitted case of both the parties that the Complainant is a customer of the O.Ps having S.B. A/c No. 501800203 08814 and MICR/IFSC Code 768750302/BDBL0001921 with O.P.No.1. On 23.08.2023 at about 5.30 P.M through online transaction Rs. 4.00 Lakhs consecutively total Rs. 7.5 lakhs amount has been withdrawn from the account of the Complainant at Bargarh F.I.R. was lodged before I.I.C. Town P.S. Bargarh and the O.P. no.1 on 24.08.2023 complain form was signed by Complainant before O.P. no.1 and O.P. no.1 told to enquire into the matter. The O.P. no.2 is having Branch Bank at Bargarh and Sambalpur and head office at Kolkata.
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission has been widened as per Section 34(2)(a) of the Act.
Sec. 34
“A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
- The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, ordinary resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain;”
In the present complaint the O.Ps admitted that the corporate office is at kolkota and the O.P. No.2 has control over branches at Bargarh and Sambalpur. The O.P. no.2 is having a branch office at Sambalpur and works for gain, accordingly, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The O.Ps agitated, the point of ‘Consumer dispute”. Admittedly the Complainant is having an account with O.P. no.2 and deposited money. The deposited money is invested by the O.Ps to earn profit. Accordingly, any dispute arising out of the S.B. account is consumer dispute.
The O.Ps have not mentioned who are necessary parties.
Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.
Issue No.2: Is there any deficiency on the part of O.Ps?
From account statement of the S.B. A/c No. 50180020308814 it reveals that on 23.08.2023 the opening balance was Rs. 7,50,315/- and following withdrawal made:
Withdrawal TRF/1000/MR AMIN MEHER ALI 4,00.000.00
Withdrawal TRF/1000/MR AMIN MEHER ALI 1,50,000.00
Withdrawal WDL/IMPS/323517014927/Amit/
BKID 0004324xxxxx8840/okkpay 2,00,000.00
The closing balance of the day was Rs. 315.00
The contention of the O.P. Bank is that OTP generated has been shared by the Complainant and it amounts to negligence on the part of the Complainant. In the other hand the Complainant submitted that at about 2.49 P.M. the O.P. No.1 telephoned the Complainant and advised to say that the Complainant has talked with the manager. The role of the O.P. no.1 is doubtful although the O.Ps denied the allegations. The Complainant contended that on the same day the O.P. no.1 was informed about the fraudulent transactions and on 24.08.2023 complaint was lodged. After lodging of the Complainant is was the duty of the O.Ps;
- To verify the accounts to which amount were transferred.
- To inform the Complainant the details of bank accounts, branch and transferee.
The O.Ps failed to file any documents in this regard what steps were taken after receipt of the Complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service of the O.Ps As F.I.R. has been lodged it was the duty of O.Ps to seize the transferee account with help of police and to reverse the amount but it was not done.
Another point for consideration is that minimum account balance to be maintained is Rs. 5000/- whereas in the present case after fraudulent transaction the account balance became Rs. 315/-. It also proves security lapse of the O.Ps.
If an account is maintained by the Bank, the Bank it self is responsible for the safety and security of the accounts. Any systemic failure, whether by malfeasance on the part of its functionaries or any other person (except the consumer/account holder) is its responsibility and not of the consumer. Till date the development in recovery of the fraudulent transactions has not been intimated to this Commission. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case it is established that there is security lapse in the system of the O.Ps and the depositors are not safe in the system. Accordingly, the issue is answered against the O.Ps.
Issue No. 3 What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?
As discussed Supra the Complainant is entitled for relief.
Accordingly, it is ordered:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs. 7,50,000/- with 6% interest w.e.f. 24.08.2023 within one month of this order. In case of non-payment the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realisation. For deficiency in service the O.Ps are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th day of Feb 2024.
Supply free copies to the parties.
