STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.  Kiranpreet Kaur Wife of Amarpreet Singh.
2. Amarpreet Singh son of Sh. Ram Lal, both are presently residing at Flat-2, Quorn House, Brown Green, Handsworth Wood R,D Birmingham, U.K B201AG.

Both the appellants/Complainants through attorney Sh. Satwant Singh son of Gurbachan Singh resident of 34-B, Batth Villa, New Batala Colony, B/S Baba Motors Batala, District Gurdaspur(Punjab).

• Appellants/complainants

V e r s u s

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Government of India Enterprises) Plot No. 2, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022 through its General Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Bank of India, Balachaur Branch, District, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar(Punjab) through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents/opposite parties

============================================================

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Government of India Enterprises) Plot No. 2, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022 through its General Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

• Appellant/opposite party no.1

V e r s u s

1.  Kiranpreet Kaur Wife of Amarpreet Singh.
2. Amarpreet Singh son of Sh. Ram Lal, both are presently residing at Flat-2, Quorn House, Brown Green, Handsworth Wood R,D Birmingham, U.K B201AG.

Both the Complainants through attorney Sh. Satwant Singh son of Gurbachan Singh resident of 34-B, Batth Villa, New Batala Colony, B/S Baba Motors Batala, District Gurdaspur(Punjab).

….Respondents no.1 and 2/complainants

3. Bank of India, Balachaur Branch, District, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar(Punjab) through its Branch Manager.

….Respondent no.3

============================================================

Bank of India, Balachaur Branch, District, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar(Punjab) through its Authorized Officer/Constituted Attorney Sh.Anil Kumar Gera, presently posted as Chief Manager at Satluj Market Branch, Bank of India Jalandar Punjab.

• Appellant/opposite party no.2

V e r s u s

1. Kiranpreet Kaur Wife of Amarpreet Singh.
2. Amarpreet Singh son of Sh. Ram Lal, both are presently residing at Flat-2, Quorn House, Brown Green, Handsworth Wood R,D Birmingham, U.K B201AG.

Both the Complainants through attorney Sh. Satwant Singh son of Gurbachan Singh resident of 34-B, Batth Villa, New Batala Colony, B/S Baba Motors Batala, District Gurdaspur(Punjab).

….Respondents no.1 and 2/complainants

3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Government of India Enterprises) Plot No. 2, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022 through its General Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

….Respondent no.3/opposite party no.1

BEFORE:- JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 PER RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   The above captioned appeals have arisen out of the common order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission only), whereby consumer complaint bearing no.526 of 2019 stood partly allowed by it, against the appellants/opposite parties as under:-

“……So from the above mentioned findings of the learned ombudsman and the facts of the circumstances brought on record in this complaint, it can safely be concluded that banking remained not only deficient in rendering services to the consumers but also negligent in doing their duties. Hence, OP No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Moreover, the possibility of banking officials being hand in glove with the third party (Fraudsters) cannot be ruled out. In nutshell, we partly allow the complaint and direct both the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.3 lacs each to the complainants in equal shares for remaining negligent in performing their official duties & for causing Financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants, with 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of its actual realisation......….”

2.           The opposite party no.1/appellant (BSNL)  and opposite party no.2 (Bank of India) have come up in  FA No.204 of 2023 titled as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited  Versus Kiranpreet Kaur and  others and also FA No.148 of 2023 titled as Bank of India Versus Kiranpreet Kaur and others with a prayer to set aside the impugned. On the other hand, the complainants/appellants have come up in FA No.123 of 2023 titled as Kiranpreet Kaur and another Versus  Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and anr.  seeking modification and enhancement of the relief awarded by the District Commission in the impugned order.
3.           The District Commission noted down the following facts of the consumer complaint:-

“……  The Complainant No. 1 wife of Complainant No.2 and Complainant No. 2 have filed the present Complaint through attorney Sh. Satwant Singh Son of Gurbachan Singh Resident of District Gurdaspur. The Complainants have opened joint account bearing No.  634610110000782 with the Opposite Party No. 2 for the requirement of Embassy purposes on 05.04.2017 and  also because the marriage of  Complainant No. 1 and 2 which  was  is solemnized at  District SBS Nagar  is   Complainant No. 2 ancestral home. Further, it is averred by both the Complainants that they want uniformity in the documentation for Visa application process. It is worth mentioning here that  Complainant No.2 also got issued a SIM Card/Mobile No. 94639-95189, through the services of OP No. 1, based at Sector-34, Chandigarh, after submitting requisite documents. It is worth mentioning here that Complainants got  linked the above  said Mobile Number with the above said joint account opened with OP No. 2. The instructions/guideline dated 01.08.2016 issued by Government  of India of Communications Department of Telecommunication. The above mentioned account was opened especially for embassy purposes has limited transactions before depositing the Complete Sum of  Rs. 7,94,000/- till 13.06.2017. The funds were maintained till  the arrival of Visa. It is  pertinent to mention here that on 08.08.2017 interest  of Rs. 4944/-, was  paid by the  bank and thus the total amount lying in the account of the complainants stood at Rs. 7,99,425/-. The Mobile bearing No. 94639-95189, was lined with abovementioned joint account No.    634610110000782. Therefore, all the OTPs and other bank messages used to come on this number. On 19.08.2017, the SIM Card/Mobile bearing No. 94639-95189 stopped working and Complainant No. 2, called the customer care office No. 1, regarding above but they said that matter could be resolved only at BSNL exchange office of OP No. 1, at Chandigarh. On 20.08.2017 being Sunday and on 21.08.2017, Complainant No. 2 was busy in his personal works, visited the office of OP No. 1 on 22.08.2017 to enquire about the problem with the SIM card as mentioned above. It was informed by the office of OP No.1 that duplicate SIM, has been used on the request of Complainant No. 2. Complainant No. 2 went to shock and depression after hearing about issuing of duplicate SIM card because never ever any request had been made by Complainant No. 2 and Complainant No. 1 for issuance of duplicate SIM card. The Complainant No. 2 insisted OP No. 1 to show the documents for issuance of duplicate SIM card and acquired the knowledge regarding the duplicate SIM card has been issued by OP No. 1 to the third party due to sheer negligence and callous attitude on the part of the OP No. 1, who issued the duplicate SIM card without even properly verifying the documents submitted by the third party including without following the instructions/guidelines dated 01.08.2016 issued by Department of Telecommunications including without confirming to KYC Norms. The Aadhaar card submitted by the third party had following discrepancies;-

1. Aadhaar Card Number itself does not exist and no one bothered to cross check this from Aadhaar Card  website before issuing SIM.
2. It mentions name of Complainant No. 2, as Amarpreet Singh whereas Complainant No. 2 customer applications Form (CAF) says Amarpreet only.
3. Photo mismatch with complainant NO. 2’s (CAF)
4. Date of birth mismatch with Complainant No. 2 CAF
5. Aadhaar card does not mentions any father name
6. Complete mismatch of complainant No. 2 signature in DDR as well. Further, there is discrepancy in the dates in the DDR as well, perusal of the DDR will reflect that the date on the top right hand side on Annexure C-12 is mentioned as 18.08.2017 and at the bottom the date mentioned is 09.08.96”.

The Complainant No. 2, immediately made a request to OP No. 1, to deactivate the SIMs, who assured the same will be deactivated immediately and only original SIM will be put in operation but neither the duplicate SIM card was deactivated nor the original SIM was put into operation with that being fed up, the Complainant decided to stop using the services of OP No. 1, but before surrendering the complainants thought of updating the bank account with another number. On 23.08.2017, when Complainants visited the Patiala Branch of OP No. 2 to update, another number, then told by the officials at the Patiala Branch of OP No. 2, that in order to update another number, Complainants have to visit the home Branch at Balachaur and complainants came to know illegal transfer, of Rs.7,99,000/-, through RTGS and IMPS from their account. Thereafter, the Complainants were shocked as their hard earned money has been illegally siphoned off from their bank account due to negligence and callous attitude of the OPs left with no the alternative complainants visited their home branch at Balachaur, i.e. OP No. 2, wherein Branch Manager confirmed the above mentioned illegal transactions and written complaint dated 23.08.2017 was given to the Branch Manager of OP No. 2, which was duly acknowledged under his seal and signature. Complainants also made request for lodging of FIR, but at this juncture Branch Manager of OP No. 2, initially told, that lodging of FIR, can seriously jeopardize the plans of Complainants of shifting to United Kingdom but on persistence, he assured that as the bank is also aggrieved by illegal transactions in question, so he will write to his superiors for lodging FIR, in the matter, through bank. Thereafter, when nothing concrete happened in matter, Complainant No. 2 made a written request dated 31.08.2017 (Annexure C-6) to provide full details of the illegal transactions been made from his account on 21.08.2017. At this following details were provided by the Bank Manager and the same are as under:-

Apart from above, the information supplied under RTIAct will reflect that application from submitted by third party with the OP No. 2, there is clear mismatch of the signatures of Complainant No. 2, when compared with admitted signatures. Further, particulars given in Aadhaar Card also are totally different, when compared with Aadhaar Card, of Complainant No. 2, DDR lodged at Mumbai on 18.08.2017 and on the same date OP No. 2 issuing the duplicate SIM Cards. All the above facts clearly point towards negligence and deficiency in providing proper services by the OPs to the Complainants. Thereafter, Complainants, wrote many emails to the O.P.s and other competent Authorities in this regard but of no avail. On 18.09.2017, the OP No. 2, bank asked the Complainants, to file a complaint, with Cyber Cell, knowing full well that Complainants were to leave for U.K very soon. In the circumstances mentioned above Complainant No. 1, informed OP No. 2, that Complainant No. 1, had her flight to U.K on 20.09.2017 and therefore, she will not able to come to the Cyber Cell of the Police and further that Complainant No. 2, had also to go to U.K on 25.09.2017, Branch Manager of OP No. 2, was jut washing his hands over the matter, without taking any pains for recovery of the amount. Complainants formally sent a Complaint to the office of ADGP, IT & T through an E-mail. The Acknowledgment by the office of ADGP was also sent to the bank as per their demand on 03.10.2017, nothing has been heard in thereafter. The Complaint was filed with the office of Ombudsman on 31.10.2017, who closed the complaint and remanded the case to CVO, Bank of India for further inquiry. In the circumstances complainants, sent three E-mails to the office of CVO regarding any improvement, deadline etc for this enquiry but no reply was ever served. However, CVO never felt any need to either acknowledge or answer the Emails of the aggrieved Complainants. Lastly, the Complainants have prayed for acceptance of the complaint and to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 7,99,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and compensation on account of causing mental agony and harassment and emotional disturbance caused to the complainant along with cost for litigation expenses or any other relief which this commission may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present complaint………”

4.           Written reply filed by opposite parties no.1 and 2 was noted down by the District Commission as under:-

“….After the service of notice upon the O.P, the O.P.s appeared before this Commission and filed their separate written version to complaint which were taken on record, taking preliminary objections that  the Complainant No. 1 is not the Consumer Qua BSNL has no telephone connection or duplicate SIM card has been issued in the name of Complainant No. 1, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground; the complainant No. 2 in his complaint has alleged that he got a sum of Rs.3,94,000/- deposited with the Bank-OP No. 2 by opening a fresh account on 05.04.2017 for limited transaction till the Visa clearance has been received. He has further alleged that the said amount has been withdrawn out of his account by third person and a fraud has been committed; this Hon’ble Commission has not territorial jurisdiction also as no cause or part of the cause of action has arisen at Chandigarh except the duplicate SIM card has been issued by the BSNL at Chandigarh.

On Merits, O.P denied the entire allegation made against them by the Complainants and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  It is denied that the complainant No. 1 is not the Consumer Qua BSNL and complainant No. 2 has not executed any power of Attorney in favour of Satwant Singh therefore, the present complaint is not competent and it’s liable to dismissed being filed by un-authorized person. It is denied that documents C-9 itself speaks the various transaction made from the accounts and the sum of Rs. 7,99,425/- has been shown against transaction dated 08.08.2017 and value dated 01.08.2017 and not on 13.06.2017 as alleged; it is also denied that no other transaction has been made out of the said account; it is admitted to the extent that the Mobile bearing No. 94639-95189 was issued to the Complainant No. 2. It is denied that Complainant approached the BSNL at Chandigarh and applied for the duplicate SIM card by producing the DDR for loss of the earlier SIM card; it is admitted that the extent that the telephone was deactivated with the original SIM on 08.09.2017 on the request of the Complainant. It is denied that for want of knowledge as it is the correspondence between the Complainant and OP No. 2; it is admitted that the BSNL has not shown any laxity and negligence as alleged for the issuance of duplicate SIM card but acted as per the latest practice prevailing in the BSNL for the issuance of the duplicate SIM card and strictly followed the instructions; it is denied that the complaint is not maintainable:  The complaint is false, frivolous and vexation Qua Bank of India and thus deserves to be dismissed with costs; It is admitted that Complainants opened a joint saving account bearing No. 634610110000782 in the Balachaur Branch of the OP bank on 05.04.2017; it is admitted that Mobile bearing No. 94639-95189 was registered with the said bank account being maintained by the Complainant; it is submitted that complainant wrote a letter to the OP bank on 23.08.2017 regarding fraudulent transaction/withdrawal; It is denied that grievances of complainant were given deaf ears; it is admitted that Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank conducts its own independent inquiry; it is denied that money has been illegally siphoned off from the bank account due to negligence and callous attitude of the Answering-OP….”

5.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in their complaint and controverted those of the opposite parties.
6.           The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.
7.           The District Commission after considering the rival contentions of the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above.
8.           Hence these cross appeals.
9.           We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have also gone through the entire record of these cases.
10.           The moot question which falls for consideration in these cases is as to whether the appellants-Kiranpreet Kaur and Amarpreet Singh (in FA No.123 of 2023 are entitled to get any relief from this Commission, over and above the compensation for mental agony and harassment already awarded to them by the District Commission, suffered by them at the hands of the respondents-BSNL and Bank of India, qua withdrawal of the amount of Rs.7,99,000/-. 
11. It is not in dispute that the appellants-Kiranpreet Kaur and Amarpreet Singh have opened joint account bearing No. 634610110000782 with opposite party no.2 (Bank of India) for the requirement of Embassy purposes on 05.04.2017. It is also not disputed that  complainant No.2 also got issued a SIM Card/Mobile No. 94639-95189, through the services of opposite party no.1/ (BSNL), after submitting requisite documents. It is also an admitted case that the complainants got linked the above  said mobile number with the above said joint account opened with opposite party no.2 (Bank of India for embassy purposes having limited transactions before depositing Rs.7,94,000/- till 13.06.2017. The Mobile bearing No. 94639-95189, was lined with joint account No.   634610110000782 and as such, all the OTPs and other bank messages used to come on this number. It is hardly any disputed that on 19.08.2017, the SIM Card/Mobile bearing No.94639-95189 stopped working and complainant No. 2, called the customer care office of opposite party no.1/ (BSNL), but the matter could be resolved only at BSNL exchange office of OP No. 1, at Chandigarh. However, later on it was informed by opposite party no.1/ (BSNL)that duplicate SIM, has been used on the request of complainant No.2, yet, there is nothing on record that any such request had been made by complainant No. 2 or complainant No. 1 for issuance of duplicate SIM card. As such, it came to the notice of the complainants that  duplicate SIM card has been issued by opposite party no.1/ (BSNL) to the third party without even properly verifying the documents.  It is very important to mention here that from the bare perusal of record of the District Commission it reveals that as per the guidelines dated 01.08.2016, Annexure C-2, having been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of  Communications, New Delhi, the officer of BSNL is duty-bound to match the copy of proof of identity with the original document and before activating the new SIM, he shall verify it with the documents of proof of identity submitted by the subscriber as to whether they are matching with record available or not. However, in the present case, the application form, Annexure C-10, submitted by some third party had the following discrepancies i.e. the application form is without date;  no photograph is pasted upon the same; total mismatch of the signatures of the appellants/complainants when compared to the admitted signatures which are part of record of the OP No.1 in the shape of original customer application form which is Annexure C-3;  even the name and address of the applicant is not mentioned in the application form; the reasons for issuance of duplicate SIM card are not mentioned in the application form; the Aadhaar card submitted by the third party is different from the Aadhaar card Submitted by the original applicants (Consumer/Complainant No.2);  Aadhaar card number submitted by third-party (Annexure C-11) is 503797686392 where as Aadhaar card number of complainant no.2 is 312578202121; the year of birth on Annexure C 11 submitted by third-party is 1972, whereas year of birth of complainant is 1978; not only photographs on the copies of Aadhaar cards are different but also addresses are different; even the difference of signatures of the third party and the complainant no.2 is visible with the naked eye. Opposite party no.1/(BSNL)  failed to notice the above discrepancies which amounts to deficiency in service and negligence.
12.       Similarly, as far as opposite party no.2 (Bank of India) is concerned, it is clearly coming out from the findings of the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh  vide its order dated 14 November 2018 (Annexure C-14), that the bank failed to do justice with the costumer; CVO had also not done justice by doing detailed investigation to arrive at any conclusion based on facts and details; the internet banking of the bank needs a lot of refinement as it creates more confusion; KYC from United Bank was not obtained which is a serious issue; suspicious transaction reporting, as applicable and that the Bank was not at all cooperating in solving the issues and even basic information asked for was not presented and passed on to OBO. It has also been opined by the Banking Ombudsman that even the instructions on internet banking was not properly examined. It (Banking Ombudsman) further observed that the bank lodged complaint with Police on 30-10-2018 which it could have done immediately after knowledge of incidence i.e. on reporting by the complainant to the bank on 23-08-2017. It was further observed that additional details pertaining to issuance of duplicate SIM not obtained by the bank. Further huge time lapse was observed in bank’s follow up with United Bank of India to get KYC details and it seemed, still, it has not been obtained. The Banking Ombudsman also observed that the  bank could not validate with its classification that no amount can be transferred from the internet as the requirements are not uniform for transactions on existing authorized devices and a new device, type of transaction, e.g. NEFT/RTGS, vis-à-vis inter-bank transfer/IMPS etc. It was further observed by the Banking Ombudsman that the bank has not specified whether transactions on 21-08-2017 were done from a new device or from an already activated existing device to validate its point. Further the view of the bank’s CVO that enough security standard available in regard to Net Banking facility provided by the bank was observed to be not supported with Net Banking Security Standards of the bank in a detail. It was further observed that the bank has also not mentioned, how and when the customer opted for Star Token Application and how was it activated by the customer. It was further observed by the Banking Ombudsman that the bank mentioned that the customer what is the user of Star Token Application, which adds one more step to security of the banks, internet banking and Startoken Password/Pin was required to login into the Startoken Application but the bank did not furnish the process of flow from login to transaction along with its internet banking policy in support of its claim. Thus, under these circumstances, it can easily be said that even opposite party no.2 (Bank of India) is also deficient in providing service and negligent.  The District Commission was also right in holding so.
13.           However, we are surprised to note that though the District Commission has very fairly come to the conclusion that both the opposite parties i.e. opposite party no.2 (Bank of India) and opposite party no.1 (BSNL)  are deficient in providing service and negligent in the matter, as a result of which, the amount of Rs.7,99,000/- had been illegally withdrawn by some third party from the accounts of the complainant, yet, the District Commission fell into a grave error in not ordering refund of the said amount of Rs.7,99,000/- to the complainants, over and above the compensation awarded by  it. Moreover, the complainants have claimed an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony whereas the District Commission has awarded an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs instead. In our view, there is error in awarding compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs, which should have been Rs.2 Lakhs. To this extent also, the order of the District Commission needs modification. 
14.           For the reasons recorded above, FA No.123 of 2023 titled as Kiranpreet Kaur and another Versus  Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and anr.  filed by the appellants/complainants stands partly allowed. The order impugned passed by the District Commission stands modified. The opposite party no.1 (BSNL)  and also opposite party no.2 (Bank of India) in consumer complaint bearing no.526 of 2019 are directed, jointly and severally, as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.7,99,000/- to the  complainants alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 21.08.2017 onwards.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs i.e. (Rs.1 Lakh each by both opposite party No.1 & Opposite party No.2) for remaining negligent in performing official duties & for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants;
3. To pay cost of litigation of Rs.35,000/- to the complainants;
4. This order be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy thereof, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default till realization.

15.           In view of above discussion, the opposite parties are not entitled to any relief and the District Commission has rightly held the liable. Consequently, FA No.204 of 2023 titled as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited  Versus Kiranpreet Kaur and  others and also FA No.148 of 2023 titled as Bank of India Versus Kiranpreet Kaur and others stand dismissed with no order as to costs, subject to the modification aforesaid. 
16.           Pending applications, if any, in these cases, stand disposed of, accordingly.
17.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost, forthwith and one copy thereof be placed in the connected file.
18.           Files be consigned to Record Room after completion.
19.           The record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in these appeals be sent back immediately.

Pronounced

13.06.2024

 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

 MEMBER

Ad