Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/388/2020

Vishal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. R.P.Sharma & Amit Sharma

18 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/388/2020
Date of Institution	:	21.9.2020
Date of Decision	:	18.5.2023

 

Vishal Sharma son of Sh. R.P. Sharma, resident of H. No. HM 250 phase-2,  Mohali 160055 (Punjab).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   Axis Bank Limited SCO No.139-142, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009.

2.   Axis Bank Limited, Axis House C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400025.

3.   Axis bank Limited, Trishul 3^rd floor, Opp. Samartheshwar, Temple, Near Law Gargden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380006.

.  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. R.P. Sharma counsel for complainant.
		Sh. Puneet Thakur vice counsel  for Sh. Satish Kumar counsel for OPs.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

1. Briefly stated that the complainant  on 20.12.2019 placed an online order for supply of a product which when not delivered even after 6-7 days  the complainant searched the status on customer care and found no 8101676750 on top of it and on making phone call the  said fraudster told the complainant that the company will refund the money as the ordered item could not be supplied being cancelled and t he complainant followed the instructions of the fraudster  and consequently the fraudster withdrawn amount of Rs.28500/- from the account of the complainant by hacking his mobile phone. Thereafter the complainant took all the necessary measures   by filing complaint before the police and cyber crime and the  OPs bank  but the OP bank did not take any action on the complaint. It was only after the complainant lodged a complaint with Banking Ombudsman that an email received from Axis bank wherein it was informed that the transactions disputed by you are done via valid UPI pin. In spite of several requests nothing concrete was done by the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant, which amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.  
2. The Opposite Parties in their reply stated that the complainant himself has downloaded the google pay application and preferred to do the  transaction through google pay application.  It is averred that the complainant has not done the transaction through Axis Bank application as such complainant cannot blame the OPs for any fraud happen with the complainant. Moreover, Unified Payment Interface(UPI)  is password protected and  the same is known to the complainant only. The OPs never ask for password of UPI payment from the complainant or any of its customer. While doing any transaction, the complainant himself has filled UPI password and once UPI password  is filled by the complainant himself then it is the complainant only who is responsible for the acts. The OPs cannot sit on each and every  transaction done by the customers,  as the same is done by the customer with their secured password. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Complainant chose not file rejoinder.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The main grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that due to negligent act of OPs the amount of Rs.28500/- was debited from the account of the complainant by some fraudster.
7. The stand of the OPs is that the complainant was the custodian of his UPI password and admittedly  the amount was debited from his account by the fraudster while using google pay application and the OPs bank has no role to paly with the same. Moreso the complainant himself shared his UPI with some unknown person.
8. After going through the record it is an admitted fact that some fraudster  hacked the mobile phone  of the complainant  and it is admission on the part of the complainant that while using UPI password his mobile was hacked by the fraudster while he was engaged with him in conversation. Meaning thereby there was none other than the complainant at fault who trapped in the plot of the fraudster and revealed his UPI to that fraudster. The complainant has not proved on record that the fraudster was having link with the OPs bank who had withdrawn amount from his account.  The fraudster was as much as an alien to the OPs as was to the complainant, and there is no  iota of evidence on record to prove deficiency on the part of the OPs.
9. Even otherwise the law is well settled that when there are allegations of fraud, forgery etc., the Consumer Fora has got no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate it and the matter is to be decided by the Civil Court.  Reliance has been placed on Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II(2012) CPJ 151 (NC), wherein it has been held that:-

^{“Complaints which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would required 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’.}

 

10.  From the above, we are of the view that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 
11.  In view of the foregoing, we are of the firm opinion that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the complaint.  Therefore, complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. 

 

12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
mp