Date of filing:- 20/06/2015.
Date of Order:-02/05/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2015.
Tilak Sahu, S/o. Dayanidhi Sahu, Age years, Occupation- Service R/o- Kansaripara, Rajbhati, Barpali., Po/Ps. Barpali, Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-:V e r s u s:-
Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Bargarh Branch, Bargarh, Near Hotel Ganapati, Bargaarh, P.o.P./Dist-Bargarh ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri K. Sahu, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri A.K.Sahoo, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.02/05/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case ;-
In nut shell the case of the Complainant is that he is a bonafide consumer of the Opposite Party having an account in his name in the bank of the Opposite Party vide Account No-063701500418 along with ATM facilities with him.
The sole contention of the Complainant is that on Dt.27.01.2015 he received a phone call from the authority of the Opposite Party Bank with regard to the KYC verification, accordingly he answered all the queries made by them ,and that after such conversation he raised his concern before the Opposite Party regarding the same to which he replied saying it to be a routine phone call for verification of the genuineness of the customer as such he was relaxed.
In furtherance of his case, the Complainant on Dt.28.01.2015 when he asked for a statement of his account from the Opposite Party, found that an amount of Rs. 34,550/-(Rupees thirty four thousand five hundred fifty)only has been debited from his account on Dt.27.01.2015 against various fake transaction and then as per him he informed the bank authority to which the Opposite Party verified his said account and assured him to take suitable action to restore the said amount but till yet no action have been taken by their end, further to his averment he has lodged an on line complaint before the Opposite Party vide Sl. No. 355783176 Dt.28.01.2015 but to no effect yet, so finally he lodged a F.I.R before the Police Station Barpali by registered Post with A.D on Dt.25.05.2015 but to no effect from either side which as per him amounts to deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party for which he sustained financial mental and physical harassment thus has filed the case claiming the said deducted amount along with an amount of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only as compensation for the same and has also claimed an amount of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as litigation expenses. And in has relied upon the following Documents .
Statement of account of the Complainant vide Account No. 063701500418.
Xerox Copy of the F.I.R.
Xerox Copy of the Postal A.D. and Postal receipt.
Perused the complaint, the documents filed by the Complainant and on hearing the Advocate for the Complainant the case was admitted and the Opposite Party was served with summon to appear before the Forum and to file their version accordingly the Opposite Party Branch Manager appeared and filed his version through his Advocate .
The rival contention made in his version is a total denial to have committed any deficiencies of service on his part. He has challenged the authenticity of the Complainant, secondly he has contended that the case is barred by estoppal and others, in furtherance to his submission in his version that admittedly the Complainant is having an account in his Branch being facilitated with internet banking and with debit card and also made an averments that the said accounts of the Complainant is linked with his Mobile No.09778189885 through which all the information with regard to his details of transaction and any necessary messages are passed to him for his information and also contended that the Complainant has been given with secret pin codes in a sealed cover respectively to operate his ATM card and internet banking too in as much as have always being made aware with messages from their end not to share with those pin code with any body even with any of his kith and kin and further has made an averments that the customer of their bank always make aware of the facts that the bank authority never ask about any information from any of his customer regarding the bank details, which are always being reminded to all of his customer time to time to avoid future such complicacy as such call are not authorized by them.
Further in his averment made in the version has contended on Dt. 27.10.2015 on the request of the Complainant he has been sent with one time pass ward starting from 6.30.P.M. to 8.17 P.M to complete his net-banking transaction with a stipulation not to disclose such pass ward to any one, and that had he not passed such pass ward to anybody no such transaction would have taken place. Furthermore he has made an averment that on receipt the complain from the Complainant, he has made inquiry and has ascertained that there was two on line request by the Complainant for transaction with ZAAK EPAYMENT Pvt Ltd for an amount of Rs.4,950/-(Rupees four thousand nine hundred fifty)only each and five on line request from him for transaction with C.C.AVENUES for an amount of Rs.4,900/-(Rupees four thousand nine hundred)only X 2(two) and for Rs.4,950/-(Rupees four thousand nine hundred fifty)only X 2(two), and accordingly the Opposite Party bank has sent one time pass ward to the Complainant through his registered Mobile Phone and upon entry of the said one pass ward the transaction was completed and an amount of Rs.34,550/-(Rupees thirty four thousand five hundred fifty)only was debited from his account and as such has submitted that the above said transaction was made either by the Complainant himself or by somebody with his consent as none else has got any scope to enter upon such transaction without the said ONE TIME Pass ward sent to him through his Mobile which is not accessible by anybody else without his consent or sharing the same with anybody by him for which it is his responsibility none other than him as such has not committed any deficiencies in rendering any service to him consequent upon which the Opposite Party is not liable for any compensation.
Thus having gone through the entire case record and the materials available therein the following issues have come up before us to properly adjudicate the case in hand.
Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Party.
Whether the Opposite Party has caused any deficiencies of service on his part.
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as has claimed by him.
Firstly while dealing with the issues as to whether the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Party, in this regard it is an admitted fact that the Complainant is having an account vide his Account No. 063701500418 with ATM and Net Banking facility for which he is also being charged with service charges hence the answering issues is assertive one in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly while dealing with the question as to whether the Opposite Party is deficient in providing service to the Complainant, it is crystal clear from the complaint of the Complainant that he has received some call from somebody inquiring about the KYC with regard to his account and he has also answered to all of his question, which is clearly forbidden by the Opposite Party to have ever made such inquiry also it is clearly explained by their authority to have made aware of the customer of his bank not to attain such fake enquiry time to time, and even then has responded to his complain and has investigated in to the matter and has ascertained from such investigation that on the relevant date, the Complainant has made some afore said transaction on line being supplied with one time pass ward directly to his registered mobile number for each of his transaction for a stipulated period of time to which nobody else than the Complainant has got any access without his consent or his purposeful sharing with the same ONE TIME pass ward furthermore the Complainant has seen not to have informed the Opposite Party immediately on the same date, and also it is seen from the materials available in the record that he has reported the matter to the Police through post instead of personal F.I.R. on Dt.25.05.2015 in such a belated time furthermore even on his request by filing a petition before the Forum to call for the investigation report from the concerned police station but to no effect, in that case it is also the responsibility of the Complainant to follow up the police to provide with the same to the Forum but it is found that he has slept over the matter, So keeping in view upon the type of transaction and the way to make the same as per the caution of the Opposite Party bank coupled with the irresponsibility of sharing the details of his account to an unknown call by the Complainant, we don’t find any short coming with service of the Opposite Party hence the issues is answered accordingly in favor of the Opposite Party.
Thirdly with regard to the entitlement of the relief sought for by the Complainant, as we have already discussed the case in details have opined in favor of the Opposite Party ,now it is obvious upon us to express our views that the Complainant has measurably failed to establish the case of deficiencies in service against the Opposite Party hence it is answered in favor of the Opposite Party, as such our order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the case of the Complainant is devoid of any merit against the Opposite Party, as such is hereby dismissed against the Opposite Party, and the same is pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e. on 02.05.22018,and accordingly the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t I agree
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (w)
