Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/81

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Moudgill

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

RUPNAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.        :81of 30.05.2022

Date of Decision                     :24.03.2023

 

 

Sunil Kumar Dhawan aged about 62 years son of Late Sh.C.L. Dhawan, Resident of # 1687/J, Gandhi Nagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar.

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Axis Bank Limited, Rupnagar Branch (0649), Ground Floor, Near Bela Chowk, Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar, through its Branch Manager.
2. Anup Singla, Manager, Axis Bank Limited, Rupnagar Branch (0649), Ground Floor, Near Bela Chowk, Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar.
3. Axis Bank Limited having its Head Office at 7^th Floor, C-2, Wadia International Centre, PandurangBudhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 025, through its competent authority/ Managing Director.

      …Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

 

For complainant             :         Sh.MandeepMoudgil, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Ms.Ravinder Kaur, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER  KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. In the present complaint, the counsel for complainant has averred that complainant is a doctor by profession having qualification of MS Surgery and is a renowned surgeon in the area of Rupnagar.  He is running his surgical centre under the name and style of Dhawan Surgical Centre.  He has employed a number of employees for different works in the above said hospital in order to run the hospital and amongst them, one was Stephen Bhatti son of Thomas Bhatti R/o Village KotlaNihang, Rupnagar.  Complainant is a customer/consumer of OP-1 of which OP-2 is manager.  Complainant was having one FDR bearing account No.921040070272501 for Rs.5 lacs, which was deposited with OP-1 with the commencing date as 13.01.2021 and maturity date as 13.08.2026.  Apart from this, complainant was also having another FDR account No.921040070272475 for Rs.5 Lacs with the commencing date as 13.08.2021 and maturity date as 13.08.2026.  Complainant was also having one saving bank account No.920010031578066 as well as one current account No.905729727 regarding his Dhawan Surgical Centre with the OP-1, which was being regularly maintained by OP-1.  The great surprise of complainant, the said Stephen Bhatti has withdrawn an amount of Rs.4,08,900/- from said saving bank account No.920010031578066 of the complainant on different dates in different parts i.e. 12.08.2021, 13.08.2021, 14.08.2021, 17.08.2021, 19.08.2021, 21.08.2021, 22.08.2021, 23.08.2021, 24.08.2021, 25.08.2021, 02.09.2021, 04.09.2021, 08.09.2021, 12.09.2021, 18.09.2021, 23.09.2021, 24.09.2021, 29.06.2021, 27.09.2021, 28.09.2021 and 29.09.2021 and similarly an amount of Rs.10,005.90 has been withdrawn by said Stephen Bhatti from said Current Account No.905729727 of his Dhawan Surgical Centre on 03.09.2021, all wrongly, illegally and that too without any authority or right to withdraw the said amounts.  Said amount have been withdrawn by said Stephen Bhatti in active connivance of officials of OP No.1&2, as without their knowledge and intervention and connivance, it is not possible for said Stephen Bhatti to withdraw said amount.  Said Stephen Bhattin in active connivance with OP-2 and official of OP-1 has also encashed said two FDRs bearing No.921040070272501 and FDR No.921040070272475 amounting to Rs.5 Lacs each of complainant, which has also been done by all of them without any authority, consent, KYC or any signatures, without the knowledge of complainant.  Complainant came to know about the said fraud/misappropriation of the said amounts in connivance with OP No.1&2 then complainant reported the matter to the police against said mentioned Stephen Bhatti regarding which an FIR No.0006, dated 08.01.2022 has been registered under Section 420 and 409 IPC in police Station City Rupnagar and said Stephen Bhatti is in judicial custody and is lodged in District Jail, Rupnagar.Lastly, prayer has been made that the Ops be directed to make payments of Rs.5 Lacs each in respect of two FDRs bearing account No. 921040070272501 and FDR No.921040070272475 illegally released/encashed by Ops, Rs.4,08,900/- and Rs.10005/- illegally withdrawn from Saving bank account No.920010031578066 and current account No.905729727 of complainant; Rs.One lac on account of financial loss and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPshave appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; complaints relates to complicated question of law and fact which needs to be adjudicated with detailed evidence before the competent court of law; complaint is misuse of legal process; no locus standi; complainant has not come with clean hands; complainant himself is negligent while sharing the personal information of his credit/debit card with third party i.e. which is his own employee which resulted said alleged transactions and now is blaming and expecting money from OPs; complainant is having his account with Op-1 and also availed mobile banking on his mobile number.  It is duty of any account holder to protect confidentiality of their PIN number and passwords so that same is not misused by third parties; the disputed transactions were done by online banking using the confidential details of complainant by his own employee namely Stephan Bhatti.  There is not only single transaction but so many transactions have been done from account of complainant he should be aware about the same.  The matter has already been sub-judice before the criminal court as complainant has lodged FIR No.6 at 8.1.2022 at PS City Rupnagar alleging that his employee Stephen Bhatti has done online fraud in his two banks accounts i.e. one in Axis Bank and another in Bank of India.  Complainant has not approached the Ops regarding said transactions, rather lodged an FIR. On merits, complainant himself authorized said Stephen Bhatti for such transactions and also shared all the confidential passwords; it is not possible for the said Stephen Bhatti to withdraw the said amount from the account of complainant.  As per banking rules where any loss caused to someone due to negligence by a person such as where he has share the payment credentials, customer will have to bear the entire loss, there is no system malfunction.  The amount of said FDR’s has been transferred by using online banking system and said Stephen Bhatti never visited bank premises for doing such transactions.  Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 
3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents.
4. We have heard learned the parties with their valuable assistance and have also gone through the record carefully
5. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant is having his saving account with the opposite parties.  It is proved on the file that on different dates account of complainant debited. The complainant submitted in his complaint that he has not withdrawn the said amount from his saving account but the said transactions were made by his employee Stephen Bhatti fraudulently.
6.  On the other hand, the main objection of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as complainant himself admitted in his complaint that said transaction has done with fraud by his employee Stephan Bhatti and he lodged FIR in this regard.  But the Ops has replied in this case that said Stephen Bhatti never visited in the premises of bank for any kind of transaction. 
7. In view of the objections of the opposite parties, in our view to decide the present matter detailed evidence is required by way of summoning the concerned witnesses and through their cross examination. Further, in the present complaint voluminous evidence of bank transactions required and complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present matter which can only be adjudicated upon in the Civil Court. 
8. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Bright Transport Company Versus SangliSahakari Bank Limited reported in II (2012) CPJ-151 (NC) held as under.-

“Consumer Protection Act, ……….Banking and Financial Institutions Services-  Jurisdiction- Cheque- Encashment against forged signature- Negligence- Deficiency in service alleged- Consumer-  Complaint- Maintainability- Complaints which are based on  allegations of fraud, forgery etc and trial of which would  require voluminous evidence and consideration are not to be  entertained by this Commission- This complaint is an attempt  to misuse jurisdiction of this Commission only with a view to  save on Court fee payable in a suit before civil Court-  Complaint not maintainable.”

9. This citation of the Hon'ble Commission is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint as in the allegations of complainant that said amount withdrawn from the account of complainant by way of fraud which means that complainant himself admitted that the present matter is a case of fraud and in the light of above citation in fraud cases voluminous evidence is required for which the complainant must approach the Civil Court. 
10. In view of above discussion and citation of Hon'ble National Commission, the present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission. No order as to costs or compensation. However, the complainant is advised to approach the appropriate Civil Court to redress his grievance, if he so desire.
11. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
12. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:24.03.2023

          (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)                  (Kuljit Singh)

          Member                                           President