SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of illegal withdrawn of amount on Complainant’s Bank Account through ATM-cum-Debit Card are the allegations arrayed against the Op-Bank.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant is a Saving Bank Account holder under State Bank of India, Pattamundai Branch, bearing S/B Account No. 30663597123. Complainant is residing outside of his residential house for his employment and having an ATM-cum-Debit Card issued by Op-Bank bearing No. 5596010055383291. It is alleged that, on dt. 21/2/2017 at about 10 A.M., Complainant received a message, that Rs. 26,000/- has been debited from his S/B Account by using the debit card, without the knowledge of the Complainant and no one time password (OTP) was received by the Complainant-Account holder for the said transaction. Immediately, Complainant lodged a complaint on Op- Bank’s helpline toll free number. Complainant also lodged a complaint before Op- Bank’s Customer Care division on dt. 22/2/17 bearing No. 2942358924. The officers of customer care assured the Complainant to resolve the matter within 45 days. Complainant to be confirmed about the refund of amount, sent an e-mail to the Principal NODAL Officer on dt. 23/2/2017. It is revealed that on 1st march2017 and on 17/3/2017 Op-Bank communicated to the complainant through message that one MERCHANTIZE BANK has been asked to provide fraud details and the matter will be resolved within 30 days. Later the National help-line of Ministry of Consumer Affairs advised the Complainant to approach Banking OMBUDSMAN or Consumer Forums for redressal of his grievances. It is further stated that as the Complainant is sole bread earner of his family is on urgent need of money and on its non-refund files the present complaint, seeks directions may be given to Op- Bank to refund the amount of Rs. 26,000/- which has been illegally withdrawn and seeks further direction to Op-Bank to pay Rs. 50,000/- along with cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/-. The cause of action of the instant case arose on dt. 21/2/17 when the amount of Rs. 26,000/- was debited without the knowledge of the complainant and dt. 13/4/2017, when the Op-Bank sent a message ‘to wait’ but without any consequences.
3. Notice was served to Op- State Bank of India, but in the initial stage of the present proceeding Op-2, AGM, Alternate Chanel, Bhubaneswar was deleted from the proceeding on the Memo filed by Complainant. Other Ops appeared through their Ld.Counsel Mr. R.P. Lenka and filed joint written version into the dispute. In their para-wise replies Op-Bank denies the allegations of the Complainant and submitting the facts, it is averred in the written statement that, Complainant is a S/B Account holder under OP-Bank bearing No. 30663597123 having an ATM-cum-Debit Card facilities. On dt. 22/2/2017 Op-Bank received an allegation that an amount of Rs. 26,000/- has been debited on dt. 21/2/2017 without the knowledge of the Complainant and without receiving the OTP (One Time Password). Op- Bank on dt. 5/5/2017 after due enquiry, confirmed that an amount of Rs. 26,000/- has been debited on the alleged date and same was a successful transaction. It is averred that, the alleged transaction was an On-Line transaction and the amount has been debited through Point of Sale (POS) or Merchandise Banking. It is also alleged that no On-line transaction can be possible without disclosing the number printed in the face of the ATM-cum-Debit Card, the CVV number mentioned in the back side of the debit Card and without using the OTP. The OTP is generated through a computerized process without any manual intervention. It is further stated that on an On-line transaction, without parting the ATM Card, and only using the ATM Card No., CVV No. and OTP, the merchandise transaction is completed. It is also averred that, Complainant in his application dtd. 22/2/17 addressed to Reserve bank of India has admitted that an amount of RS. 26,000/- has been debited on dt. 21/2/2017 at time 10.10 P.M. by POS244444874200010317 at Google Octro inc Txn#721442 and Complainant has not received any OTP against the alleged transactions.The Op-Bank in their written statement also averred and apprehends that misuse and fraud by close relatives, friend and family members cannot be ruled out on disclosing the ATM-cum-Debit Card and C.V.V. number. It is further stated that Op-Bank provides a ‘user’s manual’ alongwith the ATM-cum-Debit Card to educate and aware the Card holders to keep their ATM Card no., PIN No. as confidential and not to be shared with anybody even the family members of the Card holders. In this case Op-Bank takes the plea that, when Complainant felt that an amount has been debited without his knowledge on alleged date of occurrance, why the Complainant did not prefer to lodge a complaint before the Police for investigation and to justify his allegations? Op-Bank in the written statement submits that, in the alleged transactions, Op- Bank has not committed any deficiency in service and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. Complainant to support his case filed 15 nos. of self attested photocopies of copy of e-mail correspondences between the parties on different dates. Op- Bank filed documents as per the list dtd. 18/4/2018 as Annexure 1 to 5 containing 19 pages, which includes guidelines for use of OTP,PIN and Password, statement of S/B Account of complainant from 2/2/2017 news paper cuttings of fraud on On—line Fraud, etc. and Xerox copies of letter of the complainant addressed to Reserve Bank of India.
5. Heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for contesting Op-Bank. The Addmitted facts of the case are that, Complainant is a S/B Account holder under Op-Bank bearing No. 30663597123 having the facility of ATM-cum-Debit Card. It is also admitted that, an amount of Rs. 26,000/- has been debited from Complainant’s S/B Account on 21/2/17 . It is further admitted that, inspite of registered Complaint and a number of correspondence, yet no result. Now, it is to decided by this Forum that, whether the Op-Bank has committed any deficiency in service in respect of debit of amount of Rs. 26,000/- on 21/2/17 from Complainant’s Account? Where it is alleged that such debit was without the knowledge of the Complainant, he has not received any OTP sent by the OP-Bank and has not a part of the alleged transaction. On the otherhand, Op- Bank’s defence pleas are that on the alleged date of occurrence i.e, on 21/2/17 an amount of Rs. 26,000/- has been debited from Complainant’s Account through Point of Sale (POS) or Merchant transaction, where no physical ATM Card is necessary. Only after disclosure of ATM-cum-Debit Card and C.V.V. number the OTP is generated through a computerized process without any manual intervention and the POS on 21/2/2017 was a successful transaction. It is further defence plea of the Op-Bank that, Complainant by way of a written application dt. 22/2/17 admitted that ATM/Debit Card No. 559601005583291 is debited with Rs. 26,000/- on dt. 21/2/17 time 10.10 P.M. by POS2444448742000103177 at Goggle Octro inc Txn# 7217442. The Op-bank further appearehends that the ATM/Debit Card of the Complainant might be misused or falls into the hands of Complainant’s friends/relatives or fraudsters. Considering the pleas of the parties, we noticed 2 documents filed by OP-Bank i.e, ‘Transaction Enquiry’ (annexure-3 series), where from it is quite evident that Complainant’-account holder prior to alleged date of occurrance i.e, on 21/2/17 has made 3 nos. of transactions on POS on 20/2/2017 by using his ATM-cum-Debit Card and different amounts are debited from the Complainant’s Account and credited to the same “ Goggle Octro Inc.co/ Payment”. Hence, possibility of misuse of ATM-cum-Debit card and C.V.V. number by other than the Complainant-Account holder cannot be ruled out. On allegations of non-receipt of OTP by the Complainant-Account holder on the alleged date of transactions. This Forum issued a direction on the petition of the complainant to mobile service provider of Complainant i.e, Idea Cellular Ltd. to provide SMS details/particular/scripts, but the Mobile service provider expressed his inability to produce the same as such informations are not stored due to huge volume of network. We, are not convinced that, the Op-Bank has willfully or intentionally passed the OTP to somebody else other than the Complainant, when the OTP is generated through computer and without manual intervation. No prior enimity with complainant from the side of the Op-Bank is established. Hence, no figure can be raised towards Op-Bank regarding passing of OTP to somebody else. Now–a –days it is very common that, in On-Line transactions, Fraudsters and close friends and relatives of the Account holder misusing the technicalities and relationships indulged in such criminal activities, by putting both the Account holder and Banking Institutes into a doubtful atmosphere. So far the position of law is concerned the allegation of the complainant against the Op- bank is not substationed by any cogent evidence as the burden proof lies with the complainant to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts. In addition to this, if the allegations of the complainants is a fact, it needs an investigations, and the complainant has not lodged any F.I.R. before the Police. Simultaneously, the allegations of the Complainant cannot be treated as a ‘deficiency in service’ of Op-Bank as per the definition of C.P.Act1986, rather the allegations are related to cheating, fraud, cybercrimes etc,, which comes under I.P.C.
Equally, it is clear from the mail correspondences communicated between the parties that, complainant-Account holder has sincerely followed –up the process of filing grievances before the authorities after 21/2/17, for its redressal. But made a mistake by not lodging any F.I.R. before the Police. As the allegations are complex in nature, needs a detail investigation, same can’t be adjudicated by this Forum, where the proceeding is conducted in a summery manner. Accordingly, we advise the complainant to take shelter of law in appropriate Court/ Forum Tribunal etc. if he wishes to do so.
Having observations reflected above, the Complainant is disposed of without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 2nd day of May,2018.
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
