IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 374/08 DATED 16.01.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Lt.Col.Ravindranath.C.V., S/o Late C.V.Venkatesh, R/o D.No.103, Anuradha, 8th Cross, Navilu Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.S.Prasad, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Branch Manager, Axis Bank, S.V.Residency, No.432, Vishwamanava Double Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.P.K.Ponnaiah., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 26.11.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 19.12.2006<br /> Date of order : 16.01.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 3 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant made against the opposite party in brief is, that he got a job through internet to his E-mail address from a company called Pride Modern Textiles Company situated at Medford Trading Centre, London, which had offered a job to him as Area Manager or Payment manager. That he got a confirmation of job on 24.07.2008 which was a part time one. The proposed employer sent E-mail to him on 24.07.2008 requesting him to open a separate bank account exclusively for collecting payment made on their behalf, in Axis bank of India which is to be maintained exclusively for his employer transaction. That he had already maintained an account in the opposite party bank at Mysore. That on 05.08.2008 he received a phone call from his employer that a payment is arriving to his account and he should withdraw the same and to deposit it to their broker Mr.Aftab Razasheik who had account in ICICI Bank. Accordingly, he got information of sending Rs.40,000/- to his account in the opposite party branch, he withdrew Rs.25,000/- once, and Rs.15,000/- second time on the same day through debit card from his ATM counter and deposited the entire amount in the name of Aftab Rajasheik maintained in the ICICI Bank. That he received a shock of his life, when he received a phone call from the opposite party on the same day that his account was subjected to phising and he was also informed to contact the opposite party. Then the opposite party told him to stop the transfer of the amount from his account, but the ICICI Bank refused. Then he lodged a complaint to the concerned police, but the opposite party has stopped all the transaction of his account by blacking it and appropriated whatever amount, which was in balance and informed him to make good the loss of Rs.40,000/-. This has caused mental agony and therefore has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to restore his Bank account and remit Rs.4,857.17 and the balance of Rs.20/- as shown in the statement of account and to grant such other reliefs.<br /> 2. The opposite party has appeared through his advocate, and filed version contending that on 24.07.2008 he received correspondences from his London Branch through E-mail dated 24.07.2008 stating that some amounts are fraudulently transferred into an account maintained with them and that message was received on behalf of a customer by name Mr.Aman Deep alleging fraudulent in his account. That they came to know that transfer was a fraudulent one, which is called as Phising attack, that amount of Rs.40,000/- was transferred to the account of the complainant on 05.08.2008 and it was withdrawn on the same day. As soon as this fraudulent transfer came to his knowledge, he kept the account of the complainant under freeze and he was also informed on the same day. That a police complaint has also been given to the concerned police. This opposite party further denying all other allegations and further contending that a wrong debit was made from the account of Mr.Aman Deep and the same was credited to the account of the complainant by using internet banking. The complainant was told to re-deposit Rs.40,000/-4, but he had instead of crediting the said amount to their bank has credited to ICICI Bank and calling this transaction as Cyber offence has stated that the complainant is not entitled for restoration of his account and return of Rs.4,857.17 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has produced certain E-mails he received from his alleged employer and acknowledgement for having credited Rs.40,000/- withdrawn from the opposite party bank in the name of Aftab Rajasheik in the ICICI Bank with extract of his bank account maintained in the opposite party. The opposite party has produced E-mails and letters containing the phising. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the opposite party proves that the complainant has indulged in phising (Cyber offence) and therefore he is justified in freezing the complainant’s account and forfeiting the amount available in his account?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant t is entitled?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The complainant in support of his claim that he was offered a job by a company of United Kingdom situated at London called Pride Modern Textiles Company, in South India has produced certain E-mails he received from a person of the proposed employer describing himself as Personal Manager. These letters only disclose as if the proposed employer is a textile company offered a job to the complainant at Mysore, which appears to be only for the purpose of collecting monies for them and to credit that money to an account number as given by the proposed employer. For which, the proposed employer stated to have offered certain percentage of commission and has not offered any other textile business to the complainant. On close scrutiny of this E-mails received by the complainant from his proposed employer reveal that they have with a very objective of getting an amount transferred to them through a specified account have used this complainant and have succeeded in getting a sum of Rs.40,000/- transferred to them. The E-mail letters relied on by the opposite party also reveal that a fraudulent transfer of some money has been made from the account of one Aman Deep to the account of this complainant. But, in this transaction, it is evident that the complainant had been made use as a tool to serve the purpose of proposed employer and this complainant had no knowledge of fraudulent method adopted by the proposed employer and this complainant appears to have bonafidely as an agent and immediately after drawing Rs.40,000/- from his account maintained with opposite party has remitted to an account number offered by the said employer maintained in the ICICI Bank. With these factual aspects before us, we cannot even imagine that this complainant is a party to the phising or cyber offence.<br /> 7. The opposite party who got information of the fraudulent transfer of money from the account of one Aman Deep to the account of the complainant and having come to know that the complainant immediately after he received the message from a so called employer withdrew Rs.40,000/- and remitted to the account given by the employer should have taken up enquiry and probed to the facts as to who are beyond this fraudulent transfer and who are the beneficiaries, and taken steps to recover that amount from them. The complainant as evident, is not a beneficiary in any way of this transfer and receipt of money. The opposite party was also at liberty to take up a probe or enquiry to its logical end to reach the end to find out the persons beyond such fraudulent transfer and take action against them. This complainant who has been mislead by that fraudulent people has acted only without any intention or motive, but with a zeal to earn some money by way of an alleged employment. Even if the opposite party has taken up such a probe or investigation until its conclusion he should not have hurriedly freezed the account of the complainant and forfeited the balance amount available in it. That is to say if any enquiry or probe is taken up either by opposite party or the other branch where the amount is fraudulently transferred and if that enquiry had pointed out its figure to the involvement of this complainant, then only on reaching such a conclusion, the opposite party could have freezed the account. But without resorting to such a legal approach and without concluding the involvement of this complainant in the cyber offence has hurriedly freezed the account, which in our view is arbitrary and pre-mature, which cannot be sustained in law. As the result, we are inclined to hold that the opposite party has to be directed to restore the account of the complainant and recredit the balance amount to his account till the conclusion of enquiry and if the conclusion of the enquiry points to the guilt or involvement of the complainant they can taken action as per law at that stage. With this liberty to the opposite party, we find that the complaint needs to be allowed and therefore we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is directed to restore the account of the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order and also recredit Rs.4,857.17 and Rs.20/- as shown in the account statement with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of blacking his account till the date of recrediting it. <br /> 3. In the event of the opposite party failing to restore his account and recredit the amount as ordered above, the opposite party shall pay damages of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 4. The opposite party shall also pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 16th January 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />