DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TEHSIL COMPLEX,
M A N S A.
CC No.115 of 2014
Date of Institution: 11.07.2014 Date of Disposal : 13.02.2015
Paramjit Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, Village Gurne Kalan, at Present Posted at Government Primary School, Chak Bhaike, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
..... Complainant.
VERSUS
Axis Bank, Budhlada, through Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Ground Floor, Unit No.198(153/37-TS1), Mangal Bhawan, Ward No.30/32, Mukherjee Marg, Budhlada 151 502.
..... Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
............
Present:-
For complainant : Ms.Balbir Kaur, Advocate.
For OP : Sh.Pardip Singla, Advocate.
Quorum:-
Sh.Surinder Mohan, President.
Sh.Shiv Pal Bansal, Member.
Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.
ORDER:-
It is the case of complainant that he is operating a bank Account No.912010066549900 with OP bank since 20.12.12. The salary of the complainant is also being credited in this account. On 22.3.14, Rs.600/- were withdrawn/taken out from the aforesaid account. When complainant came to know about this withdrawal, he called from his mobile No.81466105 to an employee of the OP Bank on mobile No.9888615172. The employee of the bank telephonically advised the complainant to come on Monday in the Bank and move an application for blocking the ATM card. Accordingly, on 24.3.14, complainant visited the bank and handed over the application to the Bank Manager for blocking his ATM card. On 23.4.14, Rs.1,10,000/-, salary for four months, was credited in the account of complainant. On 24.4.14, complainant visited the bank to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- from his account for his domestic use, but he was told by the bank employees to come after lunch as there is no cash at present. After some time complainant received a message on his mobile that Rs.40,000/- twice (total Rs.80,000/-) were withdrawn/taken out from his account. On knowledge, complainant visited the bank. Upon inquiry, the Bank Manager informed the complainant that money has been taken out from his account, but how the amount has been taken out is not known. Complainant informed the Bank Manager that he had already requested the Bank to block his ATM vide application dated 24.3.14. OP Bank could not give a satisfactory explanation to the illegal withdrawal of Rs.80,000/- from the account of complainant. Due to the negligence on the part of OP, Rs.80,000/- stood illegally withdrawn from the account of complainant. Complainant has moved number of applications in this regard, but no satisfactory information has been provided to him, rather the Bank Manager is lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant has been subjected to mental tension, physical harassment and economical loss. As such, complainant is entitled to receive Rs.80,600/- with interest from OP. Besides this OP is also liable to be burdened with Rs.40,000/- as compensation.
2. On notice, OP appeared and filed written version. OP has Pleaded that complainant has earlier filed a complaint which was dismissed as withdrawn due to technical flaw, but complainant has not stated as to what was the technical flaw in his previous complaint. Complainant has wrongly stated that Rs.600/- was withdrawn from his account through ATM. From the statement of account filed in evidence in the previous complaint it has been observed that entry of Rs.600/- pertains to bill deposited by the complainant. Hence complainant has mis-stated before the Forum. Allegations mentioned in the previous complaint are totally contradictory with the contents in the present complaint. Mobile number mentioned by the complainant is wrong as it is of 9 digits only. Mobile numbers of the complainant as well as of OP were not mentioned in the earlier complaint. Story put forward by the complainant regarding less cash in the bank is totally false and concocted one. Amount was not withdrawn due to the negligence of any official of OP. On 24.4.14 OP bank made numerous payments to its customers and the question of not having meager amount of Rs.1,00,000/- does not arise at all. OP has taken several legal objections that complainant is not a consumer within the definition of CPA; complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has concealed material facts; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties; complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complaint is vexatious, complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct; intricate questions of law and facts are involved for which elaborate and voluminous evidence is required which cannot be adjudicated by the Forum in a short span and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
3. Complainant has also availed Debit Card facility and has withdrawn Rs.600/-. On 24.3.14 he has submitted a letter that some unknown person has taken the details of the debit card through fraud and requested the OP to block his debit card issued to the complainant by the OP. Complainant was himself negligent in sharing the particulars of his debit card details with some unknown person. Complainant vide letter dated 24.4.14 intimated OP that his account has been debited with Rs.80,000/- by unknown party by online and requested to freeze the account. Complainant vide letter dated 24.3.14 only requested to block his debit card and not the saving bank account. The complainant vide letter dated 25.4.14 informed the OP that by posing an employee of the bank, he had disclosed the ATM number and password to him. He has also informed that a sum of Rs.40,000/- were withdrawn twice. Complainant vide letter dated 28.4.14 has also disclosed that some of the person and security of the account was shared by him with unknown person and that unknown person has withdrawn Rs.80,000/- from the bank by cheating. Thereafter complainant himself withdrew Rs.30,000/- on 24.4.14 and credit balance was Rs.921.21p. The amount was withdrawn through immediate payment service mobile banking (IMPS) mobile banking. After receiving the letter from complainant OP vide its letter dated 9.5.14 informed him that the transactions carried out were the valid transactions for Rs.40,005.62p each and details are only known to the complainant. He was also informed that he may have divulged his account credentials including the debit card details and one time password received in his registered mobile number which was only known to the complainant. Complainant was himself negligent in sharing the secret and confidential information with some unknown person. Complainant was informed that person namely Basant Kumer Yadav A/c No.3333863435 of CBOI Branch Jatahi City Deoghar, State Jharkand is the beneficiary in whose account the funds were transferred. He was advised to file complaint against the said beneficiary. Complainant has alleged fraud and cheating which is not a consumer dispute. As the subject of dispute is forgery the same requires a thorough police investigation.
4. On merits, it is pleaded that on the request of complainant his debit card was blocked but complainant never asked for freezing the account. Complainant has twisted the facts from the earlier complaint. It was never mentioned in the earlier complaint that the complainant got a message about withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- each. Rest of the averments have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5. The complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to C-7 and closed entire evidence. On the other hand OP has tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1 to OP-16, which includes the affidavits of respective parties.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.
7. Undisputed facts are that complainant is maintaining saving account with OP from 20.12.12. Salary is being received in this account is also admitted. Rs.600/- have been debited from this account on 22.3.14 is disputed. An application filed by complainant on 24.3.14 to close his ATM and to issue a new ATM card is also admitted. Withdrawal of Rs.80000/- on 24.4.14 from complainant's account is also disputable. Complainant again approached bank officials and told about withdrawal of amount but they could not give satisfactory reply. Disclosure of secret code is also admitted.
8. Now the question for consideration before us is whether the bank is deficient or not? After withdrawal of Rs.600/- complainant filed an application Ex.C-3 dated 24.3.14 to deactivate the previous ATM Card and requested for new ATM. Customer Request Form is Ex.OP-10 placed on file by OP. At the bottom of Ex.C-6 statement of Account of complainant for the period from 1.11.13 to 24.4.14, entry of Rs.600/- is reflected. There are number of entries from 1.11.13 to 23.4.14. All the entries are admitted except the entry of Rs.600/- on 22.3.14. Application dated 24.3.14 is admitted but learned counsel for OP argued that complainant filed this application for deactivating the ATM card and not for closing his account. Complainant himself is negligent to disclose the secret code due to which Rs.80,000/- has been withdrawn from his account. Bank is not responsible for the act and conduct of the complainant.
9. Learned counsel for OP has further argued that complainant has changed his stand totally. In the previous complaint he had taken a stand that he had made a call to bank manager regarding withdrawal of Rs.600/- but in the present complaint he has taken a stand that bank has no sufficient funds to give him payment. Complainant is telling a lie. Bank was not deficient in funds. To prove its defence, OP placed on file Ex.OP-6 and OP-7, Statement of Cash Balance. It shows that bank has cash of Rs.1,13,96058/- on 24.4.14. Complainant's contention has no weightage.
10. Earlier complainant had filed a consumer complaint No.75 of 2014 and the same was withdrawn on 4.7.14 on the statement of counsel for complainant that due to some technical flaw, she withdrew the complaint with liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action. In that complaint complainant disclosed that he had made a call to bank manager regarding withdrawal of Rs.600/- by some unknown person. Although complainant did not mention any of his phone number in that complaint but it is mentioned in the present complaint. The mobile number is of 9 digit which point has been argued by learned counsel for OP, whereas a mobile number is always of 10 digits. Not only this even in his affidavit Ex.C-1 complainant has again mentioned only 9 digit mobile number. Ex.C-1 has been filed alongwith the complaint on 4.7.14. It seems that affidavit has been prepared by just copy-pasting the complaint. Complainant has mentioned his correct mobile number on application Ex.OP-8 moved by him to the bank official on 25.4.14. We are of the view that it seems to be a typographical mistake and nothing intentional on the part of complainant. Otherwise also OP has not disputed the mobile number of OP mentioned by complainant in his complaint. It means complainant has definitely informed OP telephonically about the incident that took place on 24.3.14.
11. Learned counsel for OP argued that this unauthorized transfer of money is done by Internet banking system. But complainant himself stated that he has not taken any such facility of Internet banking. Learned Counsel for OP further argued that for this unauthorized transaction bank is not responsible because it is cyber crime. Police Investigation is still pending and for this contention he relied upon a case titled Punjab National Bank vs Lt. Col. Jagdeep Gahlot decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 16.5.14 in RP No.2139 of 2013. In this citation money was transferred from complainant's saving account to some unknown person. Bank official stated that this unauthorized transfer can be possible through two passwords which are delivered by bank to customer according to his/her instructions and acknowledgment. Bank official also placed on file complainant's request and duly signed receipt for getting password for Internet banking, but in case in hand bank did not place on file any request form or signed relevant receipt for getting any password for Internet banking. On the basis of lack of relevant record this citation do not apply in the present case.
12. Bank did not place on file any record that bank had lodged any FIR with police. But learned Counsel for OP stated that police investigation is going on, but we are not concerned with this investigation as it is the internal matter of Bank and there is no record of lodging FIR by the bank. If the money had been withdrawn immediately after disclosing secret code then position would be different. Investigation on account of cyber crime is different matter. There is one month gap between first unauthorized transfer of Rs.600/- and second transfer of Rs.80,000/-.
13. Ex.C-7 is the statement of account showing debit entry of Rs.40000/- twice through IMPS transaction. Immediate Payment Service (IMPS) is an instant interbank electronic fund transfer service available 24x7, throughout the year including Sundays and any bank holiday. Customers can transfer and receive funds via IMPS using their registered Mobile number and Mobile Money Identifier (MMID) or Account number and IFSC code. Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that complainant is not enjoying the facility of Internet banking. As such question does not arise to transfer the funds through IMPS by the complainant. IMPS is possible through a Mobile Money Identifier (MMID) which is a seven digit random number issued by the bank upon registration. Remitter (customer who wants to send money) and Beneficiary (customer/merchant who wants to receive the money) through IMPS using mobile number and MMID should have this for doing this interbank funds transfer. Learned counsel for complainant during arguments alongwith complainant has stressed that since complainant has never filled any customer request form to avail this facility , as such, no MMID was provided to complainant. When no MMID number is provided to complainant, then question does not arise to transfer money through IMPS. Statement of Account Ex.C-7 clearly shows that transaction is done through IMPS and not through ATM card. OP has failed to place on record any Customer Request Form filled by the complainant requesting Internet banking. They have also failed to place on record the alleged password which is of 7 digit number issued by them to complainant, as mentioned by the OP in letter dated 9.5.14.
14. The citation referred to above by the bank does not apply in the present case because it is not a cyber crime case, rather it is a case of negligence on the part of the OP bank because entry shown in Ex.C-7 shows that funds transferred through IMPS transaction is done by Internet banking which facility has not been availed by complainant.
15. Complainant placed on file Ex.C-3 application dated 24.3.14 to deactivate his ATM card and application is dated 24.4.14. We have perused the application Ex.C-3 although it was filed to deactivate the ATM card but the body language of the application reveals that the purpose of that application was to save money of complainant. Ex.OP-10 is a request form for deactivating the ATM card, but when the ATM card was deactivated by the OP is not clear from the record. Complainant has mentioned that Rs.600/- have been withdrawn by unknown persons because he has disclosed his secret code to some one. It means complainant wanted to save his amount by depositing the same in the bank. There is a month's gap between both the applications. Now the question arises what action has been taken by bank from 24.3.14 to 24.4.14. There is not a single document on the file which can show that bank has made efforts to deactivate the ATM Card or save the amount of complainant. Although complainant himself disclosed his secret code to some unknown person so he could not claim Rs.600/- from the bank. If money was withdrawn immediately after disclosing the secret code, then position would have been different. But in this case there is one month gap between these two unauthorized transactions. After filing the application dated 24.3.14 complainant can claim the amounts debited from his account unauthorizedly because bank should be careful to save the money of account holder. Nothing is on the record that bank has adopted some procedural way to save the amount of the complainant. It is public institute working for public. Public has faith in the bank that it will save their hard earned money. But OP bank has failed to do so. Therefore, We have come to the conclusion that bank is deficient in service. It has sufficient time to same the money of complainant from 24.3.14 to 24.4.14.
16. From the above discussion, complaint is accepted and OP is directed to credit Rs.80,000/- in the account of complainant within 30 days, failing which this amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till final realization. OP is also burdened with Rs.2,500/- as cost of this forced litigation which shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
17. Certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of cost by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:
13.02.2015
Neena Rani Gupta, Shiv Pal Bansal,
Member. Member.
*neera*
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, FORUM
TEHSIL COMPLEX, MANSA
CC No.115 of 2014
Date of Institution: 11.07.2014.
Date of Decision: 13.02.2015.
Paramjit Singh S/o Jaswant Singh resident of Village Gurne Kalan, now posted at Government Primary School, Chak Bhaike, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
......Complainant.
Versus
Axis Bank Budhlada through its Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Ground Floor, Unit No. 198(153/37-T.S-1) Mangal Bhawan, Ward No.30/32, Mukharjee Marg, Budhlada 151502.
......Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present:
For complainant : Smt. Balbir Kaur, Advocate. For OP : Sh. P. K. Singla, Advocate.
Quorum:
Sh. Surinder Mohan, President.
Sh. Shiv Pal Bansal, Member.
Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member.
ORDER
Surinder Mohan, President.
Brief facts are that complainant has opened one account with OP bearing Account No. 912010066549900. The salary of complainant is transferred in this account. On 22.3.2014 Rs. 600/- were debited from his account. When complainant came to know about it, complainant from his mobile number 814666105 telephoned on 98886-15172 to an employee of Axis Bank and informed him. The said employee told the complainant to close ATM on Monday by filing an application. On 24.3.2014 complainant filed an application in the bank to close the ATM. On 23.4.2014 four months salary of complainant amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- was credited in the aforesaid account of complainant. On 24.4.2014 complainant went to the bank to withdraw Rs. 1 Lac for his domestic use. At this the bank officials told the complainant that they do not have such huge cash in the bank and told to come afternoon. After some time complainant received a message on his phone and Rs. 40000/- were debited twice. When complainant came to know about it, he approached the bank and enquired about it. The Bank Manager admitted the debit of the said amount and told the complainant that he does not know how his money is debited. Complainant told the Bank Manager that he has already submitted an application dated 24.3.2014 to close the ATM and then how Rs. 80000/- have been withdrawn from the account of complainant. Bank Manager did not furnish any satisfactory reply, which clearly shows that the amount has been withdrawn from the account of complainant with the negligence of Bank Manager and in this manner there is deficiency in the service on the part of OP. Complainant has already submitted several applications before bank officials but OP has not furnished any satisfactory information regarding withdrawal of money. Complainant has been approaching OP time and again but the Bank Manager is postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. In this manner the complainant has suffered physical, mental and financial loss. It has become difficult for maintenance as complainant is dependent upon his salary. That the complainant is entitled for Rs. 80,600/- salary amount alongwith interest besides Rs. 40,000/- as compensation from OP.
2. On notice, OP took several legal objections. That complainant earlier filed a complaint against OP, which was dismissed as withdrawn due to technical flaw. The complainant has not disclosed this fact to this Forum. He has not stated in the present complaint as to what was the technical flaw. Complainant has wrongly stated that Rs. 600/- were withdrawn from his account through ATM. From the statement of account filed in evidence in the previous complaint, it has been observed that the entry of Rs. 600/- pertains to the bill deposited by complainant. The complainant has misstated before the Forum. The allegations mentioned in the previous complaint are totally contradictory with the contents in the present complaint. The mobile number 814666105 is totally wrong number as the figure of mobile is always 10 digits and mobile number of complainant as well as of OP were not mentioned in the earlier complaint. The allegations that complainant went to OP for withdrawing Rs. 1 Lac out of four months salary and the answer of OP that they have no such big amount with them and calling the complainant afternoon and the story is totally false and concocted one. Complainant has concocted an entire false story. The amount was not withdrawn due to the negligence of any official of the OP. On 24.4.2014, OP bank has made numerous payments to its customers and the question of not having a meager amount of Rs. 1 lac does not arise at all. OP Bank is one of the largest bank and transactions in crores are made daily by the customers. The complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. Complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. OP is not concerned with the case. The complaint has been filed by concealing material facts. Complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. A person who has contributed to the event can not approach the Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service claiming damages against the service provider. That intricate questions of law and facts are involved for which elaborate and voluminous evidence is required. It is not a consumer dispute. Only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
3. Complainant has also availed debit card facility and in this connection he has withdrawn Rs. 600/- . On 24.3.2014 he submitted a letter that some unknown person has taken details of the Debit Card through fraud and requested the OP to block his debit card issued to the complainant. The complainant was himself negligent in sharing the particulars of his debit card details with some unknown person. The complainant vide letter dated 24.4.2014 intimated the OP that his account has been debited with Rs. 80,000/- by unknown party by on line and requested to freeze the account. Complainant vide letter dated 24.3.2014 only requested to block his debit card and not the saving bank account. Complainant vide letter dated 25.4.2014 informed that by posing an employee of the bank, he has disclosed the ATM number and password to him. He also informed that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- were withdrawn twice. Complainant vide letter dated 28.4.2014 has also disclosed that some of the personal and security of the account was shared by him with unknown person and that unknown person has withdrawn Rs. 80,000/- from the bank by cheating. Thereafter, complainant himself withdrawn Rs. 30,000/- on 24.4.2014 and credit balance was Rs. 921.21 ps. It is crystal clear that amount was withdrawn through immediate payment service (IMPS) mobile banking. After receiving the letter from complainant, OP vide its letter dated 9.5.2014 informed the complainant that transactions carried out were valid transaction for Rs. 40005.62ps each and the details are only known to the complainant. He was also informed that he may have divulged his account credentials including the debit card details and one time password received in his registered mobile number, which was only known to complainant. The complainant was himself negligent in sharing the secret and confidential information of his bank account with some unknown person. The banks have been continuously cautioning the customers not to fell prey to unauthorized mails/calls and the customers have also been apprised about phishing attacks and also to desist from divulging the account credentials and also the password to others even if they represent to be employee of the bank. The bank has also provided additional security checks including introduction of one time password which is sent to the registered mobile number of the customer in order to complete the registration process. The complainant has disclosed all the details including one time password. Complainant was duly informed that person namely Basant Kumar Yadav Account No. 3333863435 of Central Bank of India Branch Jatahi City Deoghar State Jharkhand is the beneficiary in whose account the funds were transferred. He was advised to file complaint against the said beneficiary. Hon'ble National Commission in a case of “PNB Gurgaon Versus Lt. Col. Jagdeep Gahlot” in Revision Petition No. 2139 of 2013 decided on 16.5.2014 has held that
“had there been any hacking in the system it would have resulted into loss of crores of rupees and not a small amount. OP is not deficient in service”. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Complainant has alleged fraud and cheating, which is not a consumer dispute. Moreover, he was himself negligent in sharing the credentials of the account with unknown persons. In view of the above, as the subject of dispute is forgery the same requires a thorough police investigation, the matter lies outside the purview of Consumer Forum .
4. It is admitted regarding opening of an account by complainant. On the request of complainant his debit card was blocked but complainant never asked for freezing of the account. The story of mentioning of the mobile numbers is totally false and concocted one. There is no mobile number of 9 digits. The complainant has twisted the facts from the earlier complaint where it was not disclosed so. It was never mentioned in the earlier complaint that the complainant got a message about withdrawal of Rs. 40000/- each. The complainant is not entitled to any amount. The complainant was duly informed vide letter dated 9.5.2014 that a person namely Basant Kumar Yadav has received the payment. Other paras of the complaint have been denied and OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove the case, complainant tendered documents Ex. C-1 Affidavit of Paramjit Singh complainant; Ex. C-2 Copy of Account detail letter dated 20.12.2012; Ex. C-3 Copy of application dated 24.3.2014; Ex. C-4 Copy of application dated 24.4.2014; Ex. C-5 Copy of application dated 28.4.2014; Ex. C-6 Copy of Account Statement (1.11.2013 to 24.4.2014); Ex. C-7 Copy of Account ledger enquiry dated 24.4.2014.
6. In order to rebut this evidence, OP tendered documents Ex. OP-1 Affidavit of Sh. Navdeep Singh Arora, Branch Manager, Axis Bank Budhlada; Ex. OP-2 Copy of complaint dated 8.5.2014; Ex. OP-3 Order dated 4.7.2014 passed by this Forum; Ex. OP-4 & OP-5 Account statements dated 24.4.2014; Ex. OP-6 Copy of statement of cash balance dated 23.4.2014; Ex. OP-7 Copy of statement of cash balance dated 24.4.2014; Ex. OP-8 Copy of application dated 25.4.2014; Ex. OP-9 Copy of application dated 24.4.2014; Ex. OP-10 Copy of Customer Request Form dated 24.3.2014; Ex. OP-11 Copy of Account Ledger Inquiry; Ex. OP-12 Copy of application dated 24.3.2014; Ex. OP-13 Copy of application dated 24.4.2014; Ex. OP-14 Copy of application dated 28.4.2014; Ex. OP-15 Copy of letter dated 9.5.2014 to complainant; Ex. OP-16 Copy of statement of Balbir Kaur, Advocate dated4.7.2014.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file very carefully.
8. There is no disputes that complainant has an account with OP. It is also admitted that complainant was having an ATM card. Complainant has alleged regarding withdrawal of Rs. 600/- from his account through ATM. The Account Statement Exhibit C-6 reveals that Rs. 600/- were debited on 22.3.2014 regarding payment to Airtel Company. This payment was made at 19.19 hours. Therefore, the contention of complainant that this payment of Rs. 600/- were withdrawn through ATM is totally false. There is no dispute that Rs. 80,000/- were withdrawn from the account of complainant on 24.4.2014 but through IMPS (immediate payment service). This fact is revealed from the document of complainant himself, which is Exhibit C-6. It also reveals that this amount was credited in account number 3333863435 in Central Bank of India, IFSC Code 284873. Complainant has also withdrawn Rs. 30,000/- on 24.4.2014 leaving a credit of Rs. 921.21 ps in his account.
9. Earlier complainant had filed a consumer complaint No. 75 of 2014, which was withdrawn on 4.7.2014 on the statement of counsel for complainant. In her statement counsel for complainant stated that due to some technical flaw, she withdraws the present complaint with liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before a competent Court of jurisdiction after removing the technical flaw.
10. Exhibit OP-2 is a copy of complaint dated 8.5.2014, which was filed earlier by complainant. In the previous complaint, the complainant never disclosed that he had made a call to official of the bank regarding withdrawal of Rs. 600/-. It shows that mobile number substituted by complainant in the present complaint is an after thought. Even wrong number has been mentioned in the complaint. It has only 9 digits whereas a mobile always has 10 digits. Not only this even in his affidavit Exhibit C-1 complainant has again mentioned only 9 digits of his mobile. Counsel for complainant failed to satisfy how mobile number of complainant has only 9 digits.
11. Now the question is whether complainant was negligent regarding sharing any information pertaining to his account number, his ATM number and his secret password code. Complainant has also taken a plea in the present complaint that on 24.4.2014, he approached the bank to withdraw Rs. 1 Lac and the bank officials stated that they do not have such a huge amount of Rs. 1 Lac in the bank. This plea was not taken in the earlier complaint and again it is an after thought. Moreover, it is unbelievable that a bank does not have even Rs. 1 lac in cash.
12. In order to rebut the stand of complainant, OP has placed on the file account statement of the bank. Exhibit OP-4 and OP-5 reveal that on 24.4.2014 OP bank had Rs. 1,21,44,817.00/- and out of this Rs. 37, 44,817/- cash was transferred from chest to cash officer. At the end of day Rs. 29,96,058/- cash was transferred to chest from cash officer and in this manner in the chest of OP bank there was cash of Rs. 1,13,96,058/- at the end of the day. It shows that complainant has totally changed his stand from his earlier complaint.
13. The first application filed by complainant is Exhibit C-3 dated 24.3.2014, wherein it is stated by complainant that some unknown person has fraudulently taken details of ATM and requested to block the ATM and to issue new ATM and also requested to give details of Rs. 600/- debited on 22.3.2014. In this manner complainant himself admits that he has divulged material information regarding his ATM card to some unknown person and in this manner complainant was clearly negligent.
14. The next application filed by complainant is Exhibit C-4 dated 24.4.2014, wherein he has stated that his account has been debited with Rs. 80,000/- by unknown party by 'online. He further requested to freeze his saving account immediately. The next application filed by complainant is Exhibit OP-8 dated 25.4.2014. In that application complainant again admitted that on 22.3.2014 some unknown person represented himself an employee of ATM Branch and took ATM number and password and had withdrawn Rs. 600/-. He also informed that on 24.4.2014 Rs. 40000/- twice (Total Rs. 80,000/-) have been withdrawn and requested to enquire and to get refunded Rs. 80,000/- and to take action against culprits. The next application filed by complainant is Exhibit C-5 dated 28.4.2014. In that application, he requested for help for return of his money. He filed another application on 28.4.2014 Exhibit OP-14 and stated that he had shared personal and security of his account with some unknown person and that unknown person has withdrawn Rs. 80,000/- from his account by cheating.
15. Vide Exhibit OP-15 dated 9.5.2014 the bank disclosed the name of beneficiary and reiterated that bank has also provided additional security checks including introduction of One Time Password which is sent to the registered mobile number of the customer in order to complete the official process. It appears that complainant has fallen prey to some such activities of third parties and has disclosed all details to them including one time password sent to his mobile number registered with the bank, which enabled the fraudsters to successfully login to his account and transfer money to their account.
16. During arguments complainant has denied that he ever availed online facility but complainant has not denied taking online facility while corresponding with the bank when complainant filed an application Exhibit C-4 on 24.4.2014. Complainant could very well inform the manager that he never availed “on line” facility or in other words “Internet banking facility”. It is admitted case of complainant that he has divulged material information regarding his ATM number and password to a stranger. It seems that one time password has also been shared by complainant with such third person, which prompted the such person to hack the account of complainant and transferred Rs. 80000/- on 24.4.2014.
17. Perusal of the account statement shows that Rs. 80,000/- were withdrawn through IMPS system (immediate payment service system). Unless the secret code is disclosed the money can not be transferred. In such circumstances, the money has been withdrawn by some unknown
person. Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi was dealing almost such type of case with the title “Punjab National Bank Versus Lt. Col. Jagdeep Gahlot” Revision Petition No. 2139 of 2013 decided on 16.5.2014 and reported in II (2014) CPJ716 (NC) wherein it was observed that;
“If any unauthorized transaction made by anybody is subject of criminal investigation only- Any deficiency on part of Bank towards complainant not proved.”
It was also observed that;
“It is clear that if any unauthorized transaction has been made by anybody, it is subject of criminal investigation only. Any deficiency on the part of the bank towards the complainant has not been proved anywhere and hence, it is not justified to provide relief to the complainant by the Consumer Fora.”
As observed earlier, it is established that complainant has twisted the facts suitable to him and has changed the entire version, which he had pleaded in his earlier complaint. It also establishs that complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands.
18. It has been observed by various Commissions that any person, who comes to Consumer Fora, should come with clean hands. The hands of complainant were dirty and were not clean. The complainant has twisted the facts. He should have come to Consumer Forum with clean hands. Therefore, there is no force in the complaint and the same stands dismissed.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
19. Let certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of cost by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:
13.02.2015.
Surinder Mohan,
President.
Krishan
