DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __70_ _ OF ___2017

DATE OF FILING : 7.6.2017      DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  4 .2.2019

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :    Shubhendu Ghosh, Vill. Shubhasgram, P.O Kodalia, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-700 146.
 

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : 1. Central Bank of India, 3, K.C Road, P.O Kodalia, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-700 146, Brance Code-2508.

__________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

                    Money was siphoned away unauthorisedly from the account of the complainant and this incident has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case  under section 12, C.P Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the said O.P Bank.  

                   The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

                  The complainant has maintained a savings bank account with O.P Bank with ATM facility. Someone withdrew Rs.45000/- from his account and the message relating to withdrawal of the said amount was also received by the complainant from the O.P in his mobile. The complainant has lodged FIR and the investigation is going on still now. Now, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank, complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for issuing an order directing the O.P Bank to refund the said amount of Rs.45000/- and to pay compensation etc. Hence, the case.

                The O.P Bank has filed the written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the complainant has a savings bank account in his bank. On 17.5.2017 he deposited Rs.45000/- in his account and within a fortnight thereof, he alleged that Rs.45000/- was unauthorisedly withdrawn from his account by use of ATM card. The hackers have withdrawn the money by obtaining ATM number and Pin of the complainant. The complainant did not take precaution and, therefore, the hackers succeeded to siphon away money from his account . The complainant has verily supplied the ATM related information over phone to the hackers. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the bankers and, therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.

                    Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the O.P bank guilty of  deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?
2. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

         Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant. Similarly evidence on affidavit is also filed by the O.P and the same are kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2  :

            Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, written version of O.P and also the other materials on record. Considered all these.

            We know very well that the on-line hackers are on the prowl. To get the account of a person secured, the bank has generally issued some precautions for the customers who happen to use the ATM for withdrawal of money from the ATM counter. If those guidelines are not strictly followed by the customers, money can be easily and automatically siphoned away from his account by the hackers and for this the bank cannot be held responsible. We also use  ATM Card for purchasing goods at the point of sale (POS). When the ATM card is swiped at POS, a “One Time Password”(OTP) is sent to the registered mobile of the customer by his banker and if the OTP is again sent by the customer, the transaction becomes concluded and money gets automatically withdrawn from the account of the customers. The bank with which the account is maintained cannot prevent withdrawal of such money from the account of the customers in such case.  

           Coming to the facts of the instance case, it is found that some mischievous persons tried to swindle money from the account of the complainant and as soon as such attempt was made by the said mischievous person, an OTP was also sent to the Registered Mobile of the complainant by the O.P Bank. That OTP has certainly been sent by the complainant and taking the opportunity of this ignorance of the complainant, the hackers have possibly succeeded to withdraw money from the complainant’s account. That a phone call was received by the complainant from an unknown caller is established by complainant’s own version as transpiring in the copy of the FIR lodged before the police.

                 Regards being had to the contents of the FIR , a presumption can easily be drawn to the effect that the complainant has certainly provided ATM related information to the hackers and ,therefore, the hackers have succeeded to withdraw money from the account of the complainant . It is the negligence of the complainant , who is solely responsible . The O.P Bank has no negligence whatsoever in this regard and, therefore, the O.P Bank cannot be held liable for unauthorised withdrawal of the money from the account of the complainant and there is no merit in the case.

              In the result, the case fails.

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest  against the O.P without any cost.

         Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                                                President

I / We agree

                          Member                                          Member

            Dictated and corrected by me

                                                  President