Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.47/28.02.2019
Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma
r/o A-7, DDA Officers Flat, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060 …Complainant
Versus
OP1- Axis Bank Limited (through its Branch Manager)
Plot No. 78, Rajender Nagar,
Near Old Rajender Nagar Market,
New Delhi-110060
OP2- Shri Amitabh Chaudhry
Managing Director, Axis Bank Limited
‘Trishul’ Third Floor, Opposite Samartheshwar Temple,
Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge,
Ahmedabad-380006
[name is deleted see paragraph 7.3. below]
OP3-Shri Girish V. Koliyote
Company Secretary, Axis Bank Limited
Axis House, C-2, Wadia International Centre,
Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli,
Mumbai-400025, Maharashtra
[name is deleted see paragraph 7.3. below] ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 28.02.2019
Coram: Date of Order: 03 09.2024
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female
FINAL ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
It is scheduled today for order (item no.23)
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –The complainant has grievances against his banker/OP1Axis Bank and its officers/other OPs that there were unauthorized two transactions on 31.12.2018 through UPI for total amount of Rs. 17,700/- from his bank account maintained with the OP1. Then his account was temporarily credited by OP1 (for the amount illegally debited from the account) subject to final adjudication but no result.
1.2. The OPs opposed the complaint that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on their part, the parties are governed by the agreement entered, the impugned transactions were from complainant’s account for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 7,700/- through UPI.
2.1. (Case of complainant) – The complainant is Chief Legal Officer in South DMC and he is having an account [but account number is withheld vis-à-vis it is not disputed by the OP1] with the OP1 at its Branch Office of Plot No. 78, Rajinder Nagar, Near Old Rajindra Nagar Market, New Delhi. The OP2 is Head and Managing Director of OP1 and OP3 is Company Secretary. The complainant is a consumer since he is availing banking services of the OPs but there is deficiency of services on their part.
2.2. On 31.12.2018 there were unauthorized debit transactions of Rs. 17,700/- from his bank account with the said branch and it was at the utter shocked and surprised, since transactions were without the knowledge, consent and permission of the complainant. Immediately, complainant informed the bank authority about such illegal and unauthorized transactions on the same very day within hours, besides he also got an FIR no. CD-RN000411 u/s 379 IPC registered at Rajinder Nagar Police Station. In addition, the complainant also filled up fraud intimation form/card holder dispute form as per the mandate of OPs but they failed to refund the amount illegally debited in his account, by ignoring the guidelines and mandate of RBI. It was hard earn money of the complainant vis-à-vis the OPs were to provide secure banking facility to the complainant. The complainant persued the matter and reminders to the OPs but no result, it is clearly deficiency in banking services. The complainant lost the money by said episode because of ignorance and failure of proper services by the OPs. That is why the complaint for appropriate directions to credit Rs. 17,700/- permanently, grant of compensation of Rs. 5 lakh as mental agony and Rs. 1 lakh as litigation cost besides other relief against OPs.
2.3. The complaint is accompanied with copies of – letter dated 31.12.2018 (of immediate information of under acknowledgement to the branch of his banker), card holder dispute form, statement of account from 01.06.2018 to 31.12.2018, FIR and identity proof.
3.1 (Case of OP)- The complaint has been opposed by the OPs by their joint reply but under the signature of Sh. Ashish Saxena, Assistant Vice-President and Branch Head of OP1 with the support of general power of attorney in his favour by Axis Bank.
3.2. The complaint is without cause of action as well as the parties are governed by agreement. The said transactions of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 7,700/- had taken place through UPI in respect of account of the complainant on 31.12.2018, the transactions were in the regular course. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
3.3. The reply also denies all other allegations of negligence or of deficiency of services against the OPs or there was ignorance of failure of proper services by the OPs. The complainant/account holder was given proper services and there is no violation of rules, regulations and circular of RBI. The documents filed with the complaint do not establish the case of complainant, he is not entitled for any amount or compensation of Rs. 5 lakh or litigation cost of Rs. 1 lakh or any other relief.
3.4. The reply is accompanied with special power of attorney dated 18.06.2012 in favour of Sh. Ashish Saxena, statement of account from 01.12.2018 to 05.04.2019.
4. (Replication of complainant) –The complainant filed detailed rejoinder while denying all allegations of written statement but reaffirming the complaint as correct with the support of documents. There is cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the OPs and there is also violation of guidelines/mandates of RBI.
5.1. (Evidence)- In order to establish the complaint, the complainant led his evidence by filing affidavit coupled with the documentary record.
5.2. On the other side Axis Bank also led evidence by filing affidavit of Sh. Ashish Saxena, Vice President - Branch Head of Axis Bank.
6. (Final hearing)- The complainant and the OPs have filed their respective written arguments, the complainant's written arguments are supplemented with circular dated 06.07.2017 of RBI [regarding limited liability of customer in un-authorised electronic transactions]. The parties were also given opportunity to make oral submission. Shri Ranjeev Pandey, Advocate for complainant presented oral submissions. However, no oral submissions were made on behalf of OPs despite opportunities. Since written arguments of OPs are on record, the same will be considered, while appreciating the case parties.
7.1 (Findings)- The cases of both the sides are considered, analyzed and assessed by keeping in view the material on record in the form of narration and the document proved.
7.2.1 During the phase of oral submission, it was enquired “whether Sh. Ashish Saxena, AVP & Branch Head could sign the written statement on behalf of OP2/Managing Director of Axis Bank and OP3/Company Secretary of Axis Bank Ltd?”. However, it is submitted on behalf of complainant that there is no specific record except the special power of attorney dated 17.06.2012 in favour of Sh. Ashish Saxena AVP & Branch Head.
7.2.2. On plain reading of written statement alongwith the special power of attorney in favour of Sh. Ashish Saxena AVP & Branch Head, no material is found in the special power of attorney or other record that Sh. Ashish Saxena AVP & Branch Head was authorised to sign written statement for and on behalf of OP2 and OP3. Moreover, the supporting affidavit to the reply has also been deposed in his individual capacity for OP1 and for none else. Therefore, the written statement is to be treated exclusively for OP1 and there is no written statement by or on behalf of OP2 & OP3. The written statement on record will be read exclusively for OP1.
7.3. However, despite there is no written statement by or on behalf of OP2 & OP3 but they were impleaded in their personal capacity with their designations vis-à-vis the bank was impleaded as OP1 through its Branch Manager, therefore, when the bank is already party to the complaint, the complaint is mis-joined with the names of OP2 & OP3. The personal/individual names of the OP2 & the OP3 are deleted from the array of parties in terms of provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC.
8.1 So far other allegations are concerned, by taking into account the stock of all the material inclusive of documentary record proved, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) There is no dispute of two transactions took place through UPI in the account of complainant, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 7,700/- were debited. There is also no dispute that complainant had written the letter immediately about those transactions taken place without his knowledge and consent besides furnishing card holder dispute form to Bank and FIR to police.
(ii) Both the complainant and the OP1 have proved statement of account, which also shows of two transactions, which took place through UPI in the account of complainant. The statement of account proved by the complainant is from 01.06.2018 to 31.12.2018 but the statement of account proved by OP1 is for period 01.12.2018 to 05.04.2019.
(iii) The complainant not only alleges in para 13 of the complaint but also deposed in para 13 of affidavit of evidence that the OP had temporarily credited the amount in his account, qua the amount illegal and un-athorised transactions. The OP1 has not responded this plea/fact either in the paragraph 13 of written statement or otherwise in the evidence. Further, the OP1 has proved statement of account from period 01.12.2018 to 05.04.2019 and it shows an entry of Rs. 10,000/- and another entry of Rs. 7,700/- both of 01.01.2019 that these amounts were temporarily credited in the account of complainant.
(iv) This complaint was filed on 28.02.2019 (i.e. after those temporary entries of 01.01.2019). The OP1 had led evidence on 31.07.2019 and the written arguments are of 04.09.2019 but nowhere it is specified that final decision has been taken in respect of two entries, therefore, the sword of final decision still hanging since the OP1 failed to decide finally about those amounts.
(v) The complainant has also supported his contention while relying upon circular dated 06.07.2017 bearing no. RBI/2017-18/15 DBR. No. Leg. BC. 78/09.07.005/2017-18 (Customer Protection- limiting liability of customers in unauthorized electronic banking transactions), he has specifically emphasized clause 4 & 5, besides other clauses that customer liability is “zero” in respect of unauthorized transactions. The circular and its clauses are corroborating the facts and features of this complaint.
8.2. In view of the above, the complainant has succeeded to establish the circumstances in his favour and against OP1, therefore, his complaint deserves to be allowed for credit the amount of Rs. 17,700/- permanently in his account. Accordingly, this request is allowed.
8.3. The complainant also seeks compensation of Rs. 5 lakh in lieu of mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 1 lakh. The circumstances are speaking loud that since the OP1 had temporarily credited the amount in the account, it could have decided the matter finally and complainant need not to file the complaint or to pursue further but OP1 has not made any attempt to decide the issue, there is no whisper in the entire record as to why the OP1 had not decided that issue. It has put the complainant to initiate and file the complaint besides facing trauma of uncertainty and agony. Therefore, considering the situation as well as the amount involved but the same procedure is to be followed for filing and prosecuting the complaint; compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- are allowed in favour of complainant against OP1.
9.1. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP1 that the amount of Rs.17,700/- already credited on 01.01.2019 into the account of complainant will remain in the account of complainant on permanent basis, it is no more a temporary transaction. The said two transaction stands confirmed as permanent entries. Further, the OP1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- & costs of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant and it will be payable within 45 days from the date of this order. In addition, the OP1 will be at liberty to deposit the amount with the Registry of this Commission in the name of complainant.
9.2. In view of findings in sub-paragraph 7.3.1, the complaint against OP2 and OP3 is dismissed.
10. Announced on this 3nd September 2024 [भाद्र 12, साका 1946]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliance, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.
[ijs-112]
