West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/45/2020

Firoj Ahmed, S/O. Lt Abdus Samad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Subrata Mukhopadhay

22 Sep 2022

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- Member.

 The complainant files this case U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986. The case of the complainant/petitioner in brief is that one Firoz Ahmad is a bonafide customer of OP/State Bank of India at Rampurhat Branch at P.O. and P.S- Rampurhat, District-Birbhum. The complainant has a savings account being No. 31342712747 lying under the OP and the said account is operated by the complainant himself.

 That the complainant found that there has been two unauthorized transfer made from the complainant’s account on 3rd July 2018 amounting of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) and Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand).

 That after knowing the same the complainant immediately i.e. on 04/07/2018 informed the same to the Bank as well as concerned Police Station but all in vain.

 That the complainant also did not received any massage from Bank in respect of the said unauthorized transfer as the mobile number of the complainant was not updated to the Bank.

 That thereafter the complainant several times visited to the concerned bank but the concerned Bank authority became deaf ear in respect of the complain of the complainant.

 That finding no other alternative the compliant became restrained to file this complaint before the Consumer Forum/Commission for proper relief as:

 

i) To return the said unauthorized transfer amounting of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,0000/- totaling Rs. 25,0000/- in the said account of the complainant.

ii) Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) harassment cost for stress and mental agony.

iii) Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) as compensation amount.

 It appears from case record that none appears from OP/SBI before this District Commission after receiving the notice. OP/SBI has not taken any steps. No written version has yet been filed by the OP/SBI. As a result of that by order No. 16 dated 12/05/2022 this Forum (Now Commission) stated for running of the instant case exparte against the OP.

Complainant side submitted evidence-in-chief. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant and compare with original documents. Ld. Advocate for complainant has submitted by a petition that their copy of the petition of complaint be treated as written notes on argument (W/N/A). Perused the petition, considered and allowed. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral argument in support of his case.

                                              Points for determination/Issues

1) Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?

2) Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?

3) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?

4) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

 Evidently the complainant has an account in SBI, Bolpur Branch being Savings Account No. 31342712747. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

 Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/- (now as per C.P. Act 2019 i.e. Rs. 1 crore). OP/SBI, Rampurhat Branch situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

 It appears from the amended copy of the plaint that the cause of action arose on and from 4th September, 2018.

Point No. 3:

 That the complainant found that there has been two unauthorized transfer made from the complainant’s account on 3rd July 2018 amounting of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) and Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand).

 

That after knowing the same the complainant immediately i.e. on 04/07/2018 informed the same to the Bank as well as concerned Police Station but all in vain.

• In HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Jesna Jose on 21/12/2020 NCDRC stated in para 11 as follows:

“11…..In Punjab National Bank and Anr. V Leader Valves II (2020) CPJ 92 (NC), this Commission while addressing the question of liability of a Bank in case of unauthorized and fraudulent electronic banking transactions, has observed as under:

"11. The first fundamental question that arises is whether the Bank is responsible for an unauthorized transfer occasioned by an act of malfeasance on the part of functionaries of the Bank or by an act of malfeasance by any other person (except the Complainant/account-holder). The answer, straightaway, is in the affirmative. If an account is maintained by the Bank, the Bank itself is responsible for its safety and security. Any systemic failure, whether by malfeasance on the part of its functionaries or by any other person (except the consumer/account-holder), is its responsibility, and not of the consumer."

Reference is also drawn to circular bearing No. DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated 6th July 2017, issued by the Reserve Bank of India to all commercial banks, wherein it is stated as under: -

"6. A customer's entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorized transaction occurs in the following events:

Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).

Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorized transaction."

In this case the complainant informed the fact at once to the higher authority of the OP/SBI through their Toll free number, E-mail and as well as in writing. Hence, after informing the fact at once to the OP/SBI, the complainant has zero liability.

Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on records and relying upon the ruling, cited above we are constrained to hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case of deficiency in service by the O.P as they did not refund the amount of Rs. 25,000/- i.e. Rs. (10,000+15,000) illegally deducted by them.

Point No. 4:

 As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

 Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

 Complainant is sufficiently stamped and proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

• In Chengalrayan Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2000) 10 SCC 213 it was held that “Interest ought to have been awarded from the date on which the claim was filed before the Forum.”

• In Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G. Harishchandra Reddy & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 720 it was held that “Only 9% interest be awarded on refund matter.”

 In the instant case as per view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases the interest will be given @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.

  Hence, it is,

   O R D E R E D,

     that the instant C.F. Case No. 45/2020 be and same is allowed in part exparte against the OP/SBI.

 The OP is directed to return the said unauthorized transfer amounting of Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty five thousand) i.e. (Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 15,000/-) along with interest thereon @ 9% per annum calculating on and from 10/08/2020 (i.e. from the date of filing of this case) to till realization. The OP/SBI is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation as against mental agony and harassment to the complainant and Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) as cost of litigation to the complainant.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.