Tripura

StateCommission

A/3/2024

MR. SATISH DEBBARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, SBI AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

MR. A. BARIK, MR. H. LASKAR, MR. B. BISWASMR. D. K. PAUL

21 Jun 2024

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala: West Tripura

Case No. A.3 of 2024

 

 

 

1. Mr. Satish Debbarma 

S/o Late Manik Lal Debbarma,

Salka Residential Complex,

Welfare Society, VIP Road, Gurkhabasti,

P.O. Kathal Bagan, Kunjaban, Agartala,

P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799006.

..…....…...........................Appellant-Complainant

Vs

1. Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Guwahati,

G.S. Road, Opposite Assam Sachivalay,

District - Kamrup, Pin - 781006.

 

2. Deputy General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Regional Business Office,

Ambika Patty, Silchar,

District - Cachar, Assam, Pin - 788001.

 

3. The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,

Regional Business Office (North),

Palace Compound, Near Jaggannathbari,

Agartala, District - West Tripura, Pin - 799001.

 

4. The Branch Manager,

S.B.I. T.L.A. House Branch,

Agartala, Colonel Chowmuhani, Pin - 799001.

..…....…...........................Respondents-Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

Before

 

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh

President

State Commission

 

Smt. Daliya Saha

Member, State Commission

 

Shri Jhantu Debnath

Member, State Commission

 

 

 

 

Present:

For the Appellant:                                            Mr. A. Barik, Adv. & Mr. D.K. Paul, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                       Mr. P. Saha, Adv. & Mr. A.L. Saha, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:      21.06.2024.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

 

Heard Mr. Abdul Barik and Mr. Dipak Kumar Paul, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, the appellant herein. Also heard Mr. Prabir Saha as well as Mr. A.L. Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, State Bank of India, the respondents herein.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala (for short, District Commission) in connection with Case No.C.C.40 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the complaint filed by the complainant-appellant had been dismissed by the learned District Commission.
3. The facts in brief, are that, the appellant, Shri Satish Debbarma is a customer of State Bank of India (for short, SBI/Bank). He maintains an account in SBI, TLA Branch, Colonel Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura. On 19.08.2022, he received a telephone call on his mobile that his electricity bill was pending for few months. Then he replied to the caller that there was no pending electricity bill. Thereafter, the caller requested the complainant-appellant to pay Rs.20/- for updation of his pending position of the bills in the Electricity Department. The complainant-appellant innocently paid Rs.20/-. Thereafter, the caller requested him to share the OTP with him and accordingly, the complainant-appellant shared the OTP. Then and then, he found that his account was being hacked and an amount more than rupees three lakhs had already been hacked within few minutes. Immediately thereafter, he tried to contact with the Branch Manager of the SBI, TLA Branch, Agartala through his mobile, but the hackers also closed his mobile. Having detected this, the complainant-appellant had rushed to the Branch Manager, SBI, TLA Branch, Colonel Chowmuhani, Agartala. He met with the Branch Manager. On being informed, the Branch Manager immediately without any loss of time at about 19:11 hours deactivated all the accounts of the complainant-appellant. Due to which, the attempts of subsequent transactions made by the hackers were failed i.e. subsequent transactions as tried by the hackers were not materialised. On the next day, i.e. on 20.08.2022, the complainant-appellant had lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, NCC Police Station, Agartala stating all the facts narrated here-in-above, which was duly registered by the Police Station and investigation was carried on. In the meanwhile, the Bank had released a sum of Rs.1,96,000/- in favour of the complainant-appellant on 24.08.2022, but the balance amount they did not pay, the complainant then approached the Bank Authorities time and again, but no favourable response the complainant-appellant had received compelling him to file the instant complaint before the learned District Commission for his redress.
4. After receipt of the notice of the complaint, the respondents-opposite parties had appeared and contested the complaint by way of filing written objection. During the course of proceeding, both the complainant and the opposite parties-Bank had adduced their respective evidences.
5. The complainant had brought on record many documents to justify the plea of the complainant that on being detected that his account was hacked, he rushed to the Branch Manager of the SBI, TLA Branch, Agartala at about 19:11 hours on 19.08.2022 and immediately the Branch Manager of the said Bank deactivated all the accounts of the complainant-appellant so that no further transactions could be made. From the records it appears that the hackers even after 19:11 hours made attempts to further transactions from the account of the complainant-appellant, but due to deactivation of the account of the complainant-appellant, the hackers failed to transact and no money was disbursed from the account of the complainant-appellant after 19:11 hours.
6. The complainant-appellant has specifically stated in his complaint as well as his memo of appeal that he also made contact immediately with one Shri Sukanta Das, the System Administrator of the Bank whose office is very close to SBI, TLA Branch. Shri Sukanta Das expressed his inability to do anything before Monday i.e. 22.08.2022. It is also apparent from the records that the entire amount of money which was hacked was on hold with the parking account of the Bank and it was on hold till 12:00 hours on 22.08.2022. The said Shri Sukanta Das till 12:00 hours on 22.08.2022 did nothing so that the money could be refunded or returned to the account of the complainant-appellant. It appears that the money was transacted through the Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. and it is the system of the Bank that all commercial transactions is kept on hold in the system of the Bank for minimum 48 hours and thereafter it can be settled.
7. After careful scrutiny of the records, we find that the entire amount was kept on hold for more than 96 hours and thereafter only a portion of the amount was debited from the parking account of the respondents-Bank.
8. On 24.08.2022 itself the complainant-appellant had received a message through his mobile that a sum of Rs.1,96,000/- was refunded/deposited to his account which was lying with the SBI, TLA Branch, Agartala.
9. The records furnished to the Court also reveal that at about 01:00 p.m. the hackers debited Rs.1,49,500/- from the parking account of the Bank. The complainant-appellant further adduced that time and again he tried to specify said Shri Sukanta Das to take necessary steps so that the money could not be debited from the parking account, but Shri Sukanta Das was found to be very adamant to help and never came forward to discharge his duty as an officer of the Bank. Shri Sukanta Das also appears to be not diligent to provide appropriate service to the customer. Shri Sukanta Das even did not look after the interest of the Bank, his employer.
10. From the overall records and scenario of the case, it is apparent before this Commission that it was only due to the negligence of Shri Sukanta Das the money was debited from account of the banking system by the hackers.
11. From the one of the documents it reveals that a “Retail Cases” sheet was created by Shri Sukanta Das on 22.08.2022 at 01.03 PM. It further appears from the Banking Ombudsman Complaint No.N202223023264238/2022-23:: Satish Debbarma, Account No.1022 dated 2022-11-07 that the sum of Rs.1,49,500/- was debited on 22.08.2022 with UTR number N234222087309125.
12. The above facts clearly demonstrates that had the Bank could have come forward actively to help and render proper and adequate service to the complainant, then, the money would not have been debited by the hackers from the system account of Bank which was on hold till 12:00 hours on 22.08.2022.
13. Mr. Prabir Saha and Mr. A.L. Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Bank vehemently opposed the claim of the complainant. They jointly have submitted that the complainant did not inform the Bank on time and he only informed the aforesaid facts only on 22.08.2022 when the respondents-Bank had taken appropriate steps to deactivate the account. They further have stated that on 24.08.2022, the Bank had paid a sum of Rs.1,96,000/- to the account of the complainant-appellant. As such, according to the learned counsels appearing for the respondents-Bank, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank Authority.
14. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the Bank-opposite parties and also have considered the facts we narrated in the preceding paragraphs. On consideration and assessment of all the facts and submissions, we are not in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Bank. As we said earlier, had the Bank Authorities been more vigilant and diligent in rendering service to the complainant-appellant, then, the debit of the amount of Rs.1,49,500/- would have been easily avoided. Question is, why the Bank had waited for three days without providing any assistance or service to the complainant-appellant. It is the plea of the learned counsels appearing for the Bank that 20^th and 21^st of August, 2022 were holidays because of Saturday and Sunday. We are unable to consume the submission of learned counsels appearing for the respondents-Bank for the reason that the date 20.08.2022 was neither second Saturday nor the fourth Saturday. It might be a closing day, but, on that day also the Bank in dealing with customer related issues and when it involves financial matters alike the present case should have come forward to provide appropriate and adequate service to the customers.
15. In the circumstances, as narrated here-in-above, this is utter negligence of duties and the Bank was totally deficient to render adequate and appropriate service, the customers of the Bank ordinarily expect.
16. We have perused the judgment and the reasoning as well as the decision arrived at by the learned District Commission. We have found that the learned District Commission did not enquire or did not consider the material facts as surfaced in the instant complaint petition. The learned District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant-appellant most mechanically without application of mind.          
17. In the light of above analysis and for the reasons recorded here-in-above, we are not in agreement with the findings and decision of the learned District Commission that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents-opposite parties-Bank.
18. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Commission, the judgment dated 19.12.2023, passed by the learned District Commission cannot sustain. Consequently, the said judgment stands set aside and quashed. As a sequel, the instant appeal preferred by the complainant-appellant stands allowed.
19. Having held so, we direct the respondents-opposite parties-Bank to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,49,500/- to the appellant-complainant within a period of three weeks from today. Since we have held that the respondents-Bank was wholly deficient in rendering the proper service, which as a customer the petitioner expected, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only as compensation to the appellant-complainant within the aforesaid three weeks. However, there shall be no costs.