Date of filing: 07/10/2013

Date of hearing: 05/08/2016

Date of judgement: 22/08/2016

JUDGEMENT

        The instant appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 27.08.2013 passed by Ld.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia in Complaint Case being No. CC/87/2012 (Written as CC/2012/87) dismissing the same on contest without costs.

        Being aggrieved by the order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the Ld. District Forum arrived at an erroneous conclusion not considering the evidence, written argument and rulings filed by the Complainant.

        The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant Sri Lakshman Kumar Sen along with his mother Sarala Bala Sen opened a joint account with the O.P Bank (Respondent herein) on 17.08.2012 being account No. 24911570002416 having Customer Id number 45745340 where there was a balance of Rs 3,11,498.92 as on 25.09.2012. The Complainant further stated that on 26.09.2012 at about 12.30 P.M the Complainant went to an ATM counter of the O.P Bank to withdraw an amount of Rs 5,000/- but failed to withdraw the same due to malfunctions of the machine though he got the information regarding balance of his said account which was Rs 61,498.92 as on that date. The Complainant has stated that on query he had found that an amount of Rs 1,50,000/- had been transferred to one Krishna Murari from his account through NEFT to the accounts of the said Krishna Murari in 3 Banks namely 1) Bank of India, 2) IDBI Bank, 3) UBI Bank in a manner of Rs 5000/- to each.

The Complainant specifically submitted that the net password i.e. IPIN provided by the Bank in respect of the said account had not been known to the Complainant since he did not open the seal of the envelope containing the said password. It is the specific allegation made by the Complainant that someone has done the wrong in collusion with the Bank Officials. The Complainant further stated that he informed the incident to the Bank vide letters dated 27.09.2012 and also lodged a complaint with Nabadwip P.S on 27.09.2012 though no fruitful result has come out. The Complainant by filing the petition of complaint prayed for direction upon the O.P to pay Rs 1,50,000/- to the Complainant, to pay further amount of Rs 1,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay cost of litigation.

The Opposite Party contested the case and filed W.V denying and disputing all material allegations contending inter alia that as a mandatory compliance of formality the Bank also issues SMS system generated alerts instantly at the time of funds transfer but in the instant case the Complainant was not heedful to the same. It is further stated that the allegation is not a Consumer dispute, rather, a criminal allegation so Consumer Forum is not the right Forum to approach. In respect of Paragraph wise denial and stating the defence on part of them the Opposite Party Bank reiterated dismissal of the petition of complaint summarily. The Parties, in support of their respective cases adduced evidence on affidavit.

In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that it is not possible for a Customer / Account Holder to withdraw any amount from his account through net banking without knowing password provided for the same. In the instant case, as the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted, did not open the seal of the password and therefore the same was not known to him for which it was not possible for him to withdraw any amount from his account through net banking.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the Appellant himself admitted that over a phone call from an unknown number he disclosed his personal details and he also suspected that a cyber crime was committed and, therefore, the right Forum to get Redressal is the Criminal Court and not the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies.

Heard both sides. Perused the documents. Considered the grounds of the appeal. In the grounds of the appeal the Appellant alleged that the Ld. District Forum arrived at an erroneous conclusion not considering the evidence, written argument and rulings filed by the Complainant. However, It appears from the body of the impugned order that Ld. District Forum referred all documents filed by the Complainant, also made an elaborate discussion regarding the nature of the complaint as well as the defence of the Opposite Party as taken by filing W.V and further the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission upon which Ld. Advocate for the Complainant relied upon.

        However, going into merit of the case it appears that the Complainant has stuck to the point that since he did not open the seal of the net password it was not possible for him to withdraw any amount from the account. ‘Without breaking the seal of the envelope containing the password one cannot operate his account through net banking’ is not sacrosanct conclusion as because the OTP (One time password) is also provided by the Bank to the accounts holder for net banking transaction.

        Further the Respondent Bank provided the Complainant with the name and account numbers of the person to whom the alleged amount has been transferred. The Appellant may take proper step against the person through Police by filing Criminal Case.

        Moreover, the Complainant / Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the alleged deficiency on the part of the Bank since he could not show the involvement of the Bank personnel in this alleged fraudulent transaction. Mere allegation of deficiency is not the sufficient proof to substantiate the same.

        In such view of the matter we are of opinion that the Ld. District Forum below has passed a reasoned order and there is hardly any scope to interfere with the same.

        Hence,

        Ordered,

        The appeal is dismissed on contest without costs. The impugned order is affirmed.