Orissa

Cuttak

CC/20/2023

Manaranjan Chayani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

P K Sahoo & associates

20 Jun 2024

ORDER

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

      C.C.No.20/2023

Manaranjan Chayani,

S/o: Trilochan Chayani,

At:Plot No.5D/1319,Sector-10,

P.O:Markat Nagar, P.S:Markat Nagar Phase-II,

                    Dist:Cuttack-753014

 

          Vrs.

State Bank of India,

Cuttack City Branch,(BR Code-01663),

At/PO:College Square,P.S:Malgodown,

Dist:Cuttack-753003 represented by

Its BranchManager.                                                          ...Opp. Party.

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    17.01.2023

Date of Order:  20.06.2024

 

For the complainant:             Mr. P.K.Sahoo,Adv. & Associagtes.

For the O.P                :              None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that he had opened an account in the O.P Bank bearing OD Account Number 33065372027.  After retirement from the Army, the complainant was also working as a Sr. Assistant in the State Bank of India,College Square Branch since 1.7.2017.  On 22.9.2020 at about 13.00 hours, he had tried to make online payment by transferring money to the account of his driver but the same was not successful since because his mobile phone remained hanged.  Subsequently, his attempt was successful and while checking up the balance in his account he could notice that an amount of Rs.99,000/- had been deducted from his account fraudulently.  On enquiry, he could know that the said amount had been transferred to Amazon M Vintage Account at State Bank of India,New Delhi.  Since because he had made no such transfer, nor had received any OTP to that effect, he immediately informed about the same that day itself to the Chief Branch Manager of SBI.  Due to such prompt attempt, the money was reversed back and was re-deposited in his account.  Later, on 8.62021 the complainant could know that the O.P Bank had received an e-mail from State Bank of India,New Delhi branch asking about the reversal of Rs.99,000/- with an instruction to debit the said amount from the account of the complainant and to pay the same to the account of Amazon M Vintage managed at State Bank of India,New Delhi branch.  Accordingly, on 2.7.2021, the O.P Bank had deducted the said amount of Rs.99,000/- from the account of the complainant and had credited the same to the account of Amazon M Vintage at New Delhi.  When he raised his voice opposing for the same, the O.P Bank had assured that the money will again be refunded after following the due procedures.  On 1.3.2021, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was likewise fraudulently transferred from the said O.D account of the complainant by fraudsters who had caused hacking of his mobile phone and the same amount was also transferred to the account of the Amazon M Vintage without any OTP or SMS being shared or even without the knowledge of the complainant.  When the complainant could know about the same, he had lodged complaint before the O.P Bank and accordingly the said amount was reversed back and was credited to the account of the complainant on 2.3.2021.  The O.P bank has suggested the complainant to lodge FIR at the local police station and accordingly on 22.9.2021 an FIR was lodged by the complainant at Malgodown P.S.  As a result, when return of the debited amount of Rs.99,000/- had not materialised, the complainant had approached before the Ombudsman of the bank on 21.7.2022 but the learned Ombudsman through his order dated 26.7.2022 has rejected the grievance petition of the complainant.  Having no other way out, the complainant has approached before this Commission seeking refund of the debited amount from his O.D account to the tune of Rs.99,000/- alongwith 12% interest thereon from the date of deduction.  He has also sought for a further amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the O.P bank towards compensation towards his mental agony and loss and also for his litigation expenses.

Subsequently after filing the case, the complainant has filed copies of several documents through his memo dated 22.4.2024 in order to prove his case.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.P has been set exparte vide order dated 2.5.2023.  However, the O.P has filed his written notes of argument in this case.

          Besides filing his written notes of submission, the complainant has also filed his evidence affidavit in this case.  The contents of the evidence affidavit as filed by the complainant when perused, it is noticed that the same is a reiteration of the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

          i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?

iii.        Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Point no.ii.

          On perusal of the complaint petition and the documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that as alleged by the complainant, without his knowledge and consent, a sum of Rs.99,000/- was deducted from his O.D account bearing number 33065372027 which he had with the O.P and the same was being transferred to Amazon M Vintage Account at State Bank of India,New Delhi.  When he protested as because he had not done any such transaction with the Amazon M Vintage; after receiving his complaint, the Chief Branch Manager on the very same day i.e. on 22.9.2020 had reverted back the said amount which was again credited to the said O.D account of the complainant.  But nine months thereafter due to the urge made by the S.B.I,Delhi branch, the said amount was again reverted  and credited to the account of Amazon M Vintage Account at State Bank of India,New Delhi.  Earlier there was also another complaint since because on 1.3.2021 an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was debited and transferred from the said OD account of the complainant and to be credited to the Amazon M Vintage Account but was reverted back.  It is urged by the complainant that there was no OTP or SMS received by him and he had not made any such transaction nor had he any knowledge about the same.  The complainant had made frequent communications in this regard with the chief Manager as well as with the O.P.  He had also lodged FIR to that effect on 22.9.21 before the Malgodown Police Station at Cuttack.  But his grievance was turned down by the O.P as well as by authorities of the State Bank of India.  While perusing the copies of annexures as filed by the complainant here in this case and especially while going through the copy of the findings as made by the Deputy General Manager (D & TB) it is noticed that the committee which was deputed to find out the fact had opined that OTPs for the INB transaction has been delivered in the registered mobile number of the customer vide flag-C.  They also held that SMS for the transaction were also delivered in the registered mobile of the customer vide Flag-D.  The committee consisting of Assistant General Managers of Alt. General Products-SOP, Fraud Monitoring Cell and Customer Service have found and have observed which is as follows:

1. The INB transaction has been authorised by OTPs which were delivered to the registered mobile number of the customer.
2. Here sharing of such confidential credentials with others comes under Customer negligence and thus the Customer is not eligible for any claim under SOP.

In view of the above findings, we recommend for rejection of the claim under SOP as the applicant is not eligible for any compensation under the Bank compensation policy.

The complainant though has mentioned about an earlier illegal debition of money from his account to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, which was to be credited in favour of Amazon M Vintage Account at State Bank of India, New Delhi in his complaint petition he has only urged as regards to the subsequent debit of Rs.99,000/- from his O.D account in favour of Amazon M Vintage.  He has made a prayer through his complaint petition to get refund of Rs.99,000/- from the O.P alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of it’s deduction together with compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- towards his mental agony and litigation expenses.  It is not understood as to why the complainant is silent as regards to the earlier transaction of Rs.1,50,000/- which according to him was an illegal transaction.  The report of the Fact Finding Committee of the SBI whose copy has been filed by the complainant vide Annexure-C, clearly shows that the said committee could come to a conclusion after enquiring into the matter that the OTP and the SMS were all sent to the registered mobile of the customer/complainant in this case regarding the alleged transaction for which they had suggested that since because the sharing of such confidential credentials with others comes under customer’s negligence, the customer is not eligible for any claim under SOP.  As it seems that the complainant had not preferred to challenge such findings of the said committee before any higher Forum of the SBI. The complainant had also lodged FIR but has not apprised this Commission to know about the result of the said investigation in the said case in response to his FIR.  If at all the investigation is still pending, it would be premature to jump into a finding here in this case.  That apart, keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in mind and after evaluating the evidence as available, it is noticed that the complainant has not provided any cogent evidence in order to apprise this Commission that infact he had no knowledge about such transaction as alleged by him with Amazon M Vintage and that there was no sharing of OTP or SMS to his registered mobile regarding such transaction as alleged and found out by the fact-finding committee.  Accordingly, this Commission finds no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P in any manner as alleged by the complainant.  This issue thus, goes against the complainant.

Points no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as made by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

                                              ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 20^th day of June,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                     

                                                                                 

                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                                                                                                   

 

                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                             Member