Date of filing : 28.11.2017
Date of Judgement: 20.02.2020
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon,ble Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 17 read with Section 12 o the C. P. Act, 1986 by Sri Abhijit Dutta against 1) Bank of Baroda, 2) The Chairman, Bank of Baroda, 3) Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, 4) Chief Manager, Customer Service, 5) Chief Manger, Bank of Baroda, Moore Avenue Branch.
Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a consumer under the OP Bank of Baroda as he has been maintaining a Savings Account being no. 1963010002011 with the OP Bank and also using debit card bearing no. 4029850337624206 issued by the said Bank but on 01.12.2015 the complainant has come to know through an SMS sent by the OP Bank to that effect that an amount of Rs. 3900/- has been withdrawn from his account using ATM and as such being astonished the complainant by sending a letter dt. 1.12.2015 requested the Chief Manager of the said Bank to block his debit card and by another letter dt. 2.12.2015 has lodged a complaint with Jadavpur Police Station for taking necessary actions in this regard and further sent a letter to Additional Commissioner of Police & Joint Commissioner of Police for recovery of the said amount. The complainant has stated that receiving no information regarding the said mater the complainant vide letter dt. 4.12.2015 addressed to the Chief Manger of Bank of Baroda, Moore Avenue Branch (OP No.5 herein) asked to take necessary actions for refund of said amount to the account of the complainant and on the said date received a e.mail from the OP Bank suggesting him to block the debit card and to send a copy of complaint lodged by the complainant with Kolkata Police. The complainant has further stated that the Deputy General Manager of the bank intimated the matter to the R.M. Kolkata directing him to take up the matter with the Branch Office of the said bank and on 14.12.2015 the OP Bank sent e.mail informing the complainant about steps taken by them regarding the said matter assuring the complainant to resolve the dispute shortly and, subsequently, similar message has been received by the complainant on 25.12.2015 though no step has been taken by any of the authority to that effect. It is stated by the complainant that he sent letter dt. 29.12.2015 to the Chairman of the Bank requesting him to provide CCTV footage of the pertinent point of time and on 30.01.2016 the complainant got assurance from the said end that the step has been taken to that effect but no fruitful result has been yielded so far finding no other alternative way the complainant by filing the instant petition has prayed for direction upon the OPs to refund Rs.3900/- to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation & Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The complainant annexed letters dt. 01.12.2015, 04.12.2015 issued to Chief Manager, letter dt. 03.12.2015 issued to Special Additional CP & Joint C.P, of letter dt. 02.12.2015 addressed to Officer in Charge , Jadavpur P.S. Screen shot of SMS. Letter dt. 04.12.2015.
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia, that overspreading of cyber crime also affects Banking Network System and the customers are always made to aware to keep their password secret as the same is the gateway to access one’s account. The OP No.1 has stated that receiving the letter dt. 1.12.2015 from the complainant the OP No.1 directed the Branch Office to block the said card and accordingly the same had been done and requested the Bank to provide CCTV footage. Since the amount was withdrawn from the ATM of Bank of India. It is further stated by the OP No.1 that the Cyber Crime Department of Lalbazar undertook the matter and cyber crime is covered by Information Technology Act 2000 thus the same has been decided under the said Act and the OP Bank complied all request of the complainant. Moreover the instant dispute is related to cyber crime and , therefore, there is no latches on the part of the OP and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP Nos. 2 to 5 also contested the case by filing written version stating inter alia, that the OP no.5, receiving instruction from the complainant on 1.12.2015 blocked the Debit Card in compliance with the direction of the complainant. It is further stated by the OPs that the complainant by letter dt. 4.12.2015 informed the OP No.5 that an amount of Rs. 3900/-had been stolen from his account which had been withdrawn from the ATM by some miscreants and, therefore, investigation relating to the said matter might be conducted under the provision of the Information Technology Act 2000”. It is further stated by the OPNo.5 on behalf of the OP Nos.2 to 4 that the ATM released money only after indentifying the customer through the Password and except the customer none other have any access to that password.
The complainant and the OP Nos. 3 to 5 adduced evidence followed by cross-examination in the form of questionnaire and reply thereto.
Points for determination –
- Whether there is deficiency on the part of the OPs.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1 & 2 :
Both points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision. Admittedly, an amount of Rs. 3900/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant maintained with Bank of Baroda, Moore Avenue Branch through an ATM of Bank of India on 1.12.2015. The complainant have claimed that he came to know about such withdrawal from SMS sent by the Bank of Baroda and immediately directed the said Bank to block his debit card. Letter dt. 01.12.2015 issued by the complainant to Chief Manager of the Moore Avenue Branch also supports that the complainant sent instruction to the Bank to block the card.
The complainant has claimed that he lodged complaint with the Jadavpur P.S. vide letter dt. 02.12.2015 and again on 03.12.2015 brought the matter to the notice of Special Addl. C.P. & Joint CP (Crime) seeking help for recovery of said amount. Letter dt.02.12.2015 & 03.12.2015 annexed to the petition of complaint supports such contention of the complainant. It appears from letter dt. 04.12.015 that the complainant requested the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda of Moore Avenue Branch to initiate necessary action and refund the money. Copy of e.mail conversation also supports that the Deputy General Manager directed the R.M, Kolkata Metro on 04.12.2015 to take up the matter with Moore Avenue Branch for redressal of complaint. It further appears from e.mail exchanged by the parties that in response to a mail from the end of the complainant on 14.12.2015 the Branch Office intimated the complainant that the matter would be resolved shortly as the ATM card Department had taken up the said matter. It is evident from this documents that the complainant intimated the matter to the Bank that the withdrawal of RS. 3900/- had not been done by him and, further, requested the OP Bank to take steps so that he might get back the money which allegedly withdrawn by some other person. It is also evident that the Deputy General Manger of OP Bank also directed the R.M, Kolkata Metro to take step for redressal of grievance of the complainant and the Branch Manager of the OP Bank gave assurance that the matter would be resolved shortly but no effective result was yielded. It is specifically stated by the OPs that the transaction which has been described by the complainant as fraudulent transaction is the matter of investigation by the cyber crime department since the Pin No. provided to the consumer is the only way to get access to the account and, further, the transaction has been made through ATM of Bank of India and the said Bank has failed to provide CCTV footage of the said date of incident on request. Annexure to the petition of complaint shows that the OP Bank sought CCTV footage. But no averment on the part of the OP has been advanced to make it clear that which sep has been taken by the ATM card department or by the bank regarding those issues. If a fraudulent transaction has take placed the matter of investigation definitely goes to the Cyber Crime Department but in the instant case the bank shirk their liabilities only stating that the matter will be resolved shortly and the OP Bank asked for CCTV footage. It is also observed that the said incident took place on 01.12.2015 and the complaint came before this Forum on 28.11.2017 waiting for about two years and the bank failed to provide information regarding what measures have been taken by them. Such inaction on the part the OP bank amounts to deficiency in service.
In course of hearing Ld. Advocate on behalf of OP cited a decision of Hon’ble NCDRC reported in 2019 (1)CPR 549 (NC) [ Ranjay Trehan –vs. – Jagat Motors & Anr.] in support of his averment that this petition of complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party since Bank of India has not been impleaded as party from ATM of which Bank the amount was withdrawn. However, the complainant has stated that he came to know over SMS sent by bank of Baroda that an amount of Rs. 3900/- was debited from his savings bank account which has been withdrawn using his debit card but in reality, as he stated he did not withdrawn such amount. Though the bank has stated that the said amount has been withdrawn from ATM of Bank of India but it is not possible for the complainant to know that the said amount was withdrawn from the ATM of Bank of India and,therefore, we are of opinion that the said decision is not applicable to the instant case.
Under such circumstances we are inclined to direct the OP Bank to refund the debited amount. Regarding prayer for cost and compensation considering the circumstances we are not inclined to allow such prayer.
Point nos. 1 & 2 are decided.
Hence,
Ordered
That CC/673/2017 is allowed on contest without cost. OPs are directed to credit Rs. 3900/- to the saving account of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
