The content of the complaint petition is that the petitioner is a retired senior citizen as well as a pension holder is a native of Gazole, Malda received few messages in his mobile about 10.16 a.m on 09.07.2018 that Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 223.60 = 20223.60 amount of money was withdrawn from a/c being no 06780100880934 of United Bank of India from SBI Chanchal ATM and Samsi (Ratanpur) ATM. He informed this matter to the respondent bank and he also informed to IC, Gazole PS on 09.07.2018. But all goes in vain. After that he approached before CA & FBP, Malda R.O. The problem was not solved. Having found no alternative he knocked the door of this commission with a prayer to order the OP Bank to return Rs. 20223.60 and Rs. 20,000/- for compensation of harassment and mental agony.
::Decision with Reason::
Points to be decided: whether there is any deficiency of service by OPs?
This commission carefully perused the complaint and Written Version by both parties and evidence in writing by the parties with documents.
Now admitted portion through having properly summoned the Ops appeared before this commission to establish their fairness in service or to show that no fault on their part.
In Rajeshwar Sing VS Union of India 2017, The SC stated that the Consumer Court does not have jurisdiction to try involving cyber crime and online fraud. The Apex court observed that such cases involved complex issues of cyber law and required specialized expert which is beyond the scoop of Consumer Court. Consumer Courts in India does not have jurisdiction to try cases involving cyber crime and online fraud.
In Vijay Kumar Vs State of Maharashtra 2020 Bombay High Court, this case Vijay Kumar, petitioner had filed a complaint against the state of Maharashtra and other Respondents alleging that he had been a victim of online fraud. The Bombay High Court held that Consumer Courts do not have jurisdiction to try cases involving Cyber Crimes and online cases.
Consequently on perusal of aforesaid citation relaying on evidence of testimony of the both parties this commission has no alternative but to hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP to the complainant and complainant thereby is no entitled to get relief as asked for in moderate manner.
CF paid correctly.
Hence it is Ordered,
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed without cost.
Let a copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Disposed of.
