Orissa

Cuttak

CC/32/2019

Sanjiba Kumar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

B Mohapatra & associates

13 Feb 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.32/2019

 

Sanjiba Kumar Sahoo,

S/O:Birabar Sahoo,

Resident of Village Rampei(Patharakata),

P.O/P.S:Khuntuni,Via:Athagarh,Dist:Cuttack.                ... Complainant.

 

 

                                                                Vrs.

1. Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,Khuntuni Branch,

                   At/Po/Ps-Khuntuni,Via-Athagarh,Dist-Cuttack

 

2. Banking Ombudsman,

C/Reserve Bank of India,

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,Bhubaneswar,

                                 Dist-Khurda.                                                                        …. OPP parties

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     07.03.2019

Date of Order:    13.02.2023

 

For the complainant:              Mr. B.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. No.1     :         Mr. P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.

               For the O. P. no.2:                  Self.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he has a S.B.Account with O.P no.1 bearing A/C. No.10508913352.  The said account of the complainant had ATM Card facility which was valid upto the month of June,2023.  He had used the said ATM Debit Card for the last time on 4.9.2018 in order to withdraw cash from Khuntuni SBI ATM counter.  While updating his passbook on 3.10.2018, the complainant could know that a series of online transactions has been made in his said S.B. account within 29.9.18 to 2.10.18 and approximately an amount  of Rs.70,000/- has been transferred in that process.  He immediately had blocked his ATM Debit Card through Customer Care Service of S.B.I and had lodged a complaint in that aspect before the O.P no.1 on that day itself.  Soon after blocking his ATM Debit Card some amounts were credited back to his account which he learnt on 4.10.18 while updating his passbook again.  He had also initiated a complaint before the Police Cyber Crime Cell on 4.10.18 and had also made his complaint before the O.No.2 on 8.10.18.  It is for this, the complainant had filed his case before this Commission against O.Ps no.1 & 2 seeking direction to O.P no.1 to compensate him with a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of all the relevant documents including copies of his S.B.Account  showing transactions thereof in order to prove his case.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case but have filed their written versions separately.  According to the written version of O.P no.1, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be rejected with cost.  According to O.P no.1, certain articles were purchased online within the said three days.  O.P No.1 has stated through his written version that he had no knowledge as regards to certain refunds/credited back of funds to the S.B. Account of the complainant till notice was issued from this Commission.  O.P no.1 after getting the written complaint from the complainant had forwarded the same for investigation through the Police personnels of Cyber Crime Cell.  According to the O.P no.1 any online transaction requires OTP number in order to make the transaction successful.  The said alleged online transactions in the S.B.Account of the complainant must have been  issued OTP numbers which the complainant should have received through his registered mobile phone and thereafter the transaction would have been made successful. Apart from that, according to O.P no.1, as per the terms and conditions of the facility of using ATM-cum-Debit Card, the person availing the ATM/Debit Card facility agrees that in case of any online purchase/sell, the bank will not be held responsible if in case any dispute arises.  Accordingly, the O.P No.1 has urged that the case of the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be rejected.

          O.P no.2, Smt. Basanti Rath who was the then Asst. Manager in the R.B.I,Office of the Banking Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar, through her written version has stated that the allegations as made by the complainant is baseless and false.  According to O.P no,2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  O.P no.2, through her written version has narrated in a lucid manner all the duties and responsibilities of Banking Ombudsman(O.B) and has filed a copy of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme,2006 which has been amended upto 1^st of July,2017.  She has also filed a copy of the letter sent by O.P no.1 dt.3.12.2018 wherein it is mentioned about the SMS sent to the registered mobile number in respect of the disputed transactions during 29.9.18 to 2.10.18 and all the said online transactions were done by using the valid Debit Card and PIN.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they had practised unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit also here in this case.  O.P no.1 has also filed his evidence affidavit in this case.  On perusal of the said evidence affidavits as filed by the complainant and O.P no.1 as well, it is noticed that the complainant through his evidence affidavit has only reiterated the contents of his complaint petition and so is the case of O.P no.1 who has also reiterated the contents of his written version in his evidence affidavit

Issues no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments as made from either sides here in this case through the complaint petition and written versions, together with the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant has an S.B.Account with O.P no.1 bearing No.10508913352 .  It is also not in dispute that he had one ATM/Debit Card facility provided to him.  Through Annexure-1, which are copies of the banking transactions as made pertaining to the account of the complainant, it is noticed that as alleged from 29.9.18 upto 2.10.18 there were series of online transactions made in the said account.  The plea of the complainant in this context is that he has not initiated any purchase and had not made any online payment through his ATM/Debit card, nor had he received any OTP or submitted the same within that period.  In order to make any online transaction successful, the secret pin number has a pivotal role.  That apart, as per the procedure there should be OTP in each transaction which is required to be submitted to the registered mobile phone of the account holder and disclosure of the same thereof will make the transaction successful.  But the complainant, as he says, has never applied for any online transaction nor had he received or submitted any OTP number.  This plea of the complainant tilts our eye brows.  It is because, the complainant submits something which is unusual, abrupt and against banking policies. It may so happen, the ATM/Debit Card of the complainant might have been misused but it is difficult to predict here as to who the miscreant is. It is because, in order to make the online transaction successful, the ATM card, mobile phone set are very much required together with knowledge about the secret PIN number of the said ATM card. Thus, one thing is for sure that there were certain banking transactions made online within the alleged period effective from 29.9.18 till 2.10.18 as per Annexure-1, and there were certain amounts returned to the account of the complainant on 4.10.18.  Moreover, the matter is under investigation by the Cyber Crime Cell of the Police Department and the outcome of the investigation is not yet known.  Hence, the claim of the complainant that due to the deficiency in service of the O.Ps and due to the practice of unfair trade by the O.Ps, he had sustained financial loss of Rs.55,000/- cannot be said to be proper at this stage.  Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable being quite pre-mature now and the complainant is thus not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him now.

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 13^thday of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                           

                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                         Member