This is a case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 filed by the complainant Sajal Das against the O.P. Chief Manager State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri, and others for refund of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) against savings Bank Account No. 20085330429 and other reliefs.

               The case of the complainant in brief inter-alia is that he has savings Bank Account No. 20085330429 at State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri Main Branch on 18.05.2017. He received a message in his Mobile Phone that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) was debited from his savings Bank Account. But he did not operate his Bank Account either on that day or subsequent to that day for withdrawal any amount. Thereafter he locked his A.T.M. facility at S.B.I. Bank through his Mobile Phone on 19.05.2017. He went to the State Bank of India to update his pass-book and no message was received. On update of the pass-book the complainant at a glance become nervous after going through the pass-book. It came to his notice that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand Only) was being withdrawn. First of which was of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand Only) then the next sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) ware withdrawn from his Account. The complainant lodged complainant in writing to the O.P. State Bank of India for taking cognizance.

               Therefore, the complainant noticed on 18.05.2017 that three transactions at different time on 18.05.2017 totaling Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) were being withdrawn. On 20.05.2019 he went to State Bank of India and complained to the O.P. Bank in writing about the withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) on 18.05.2017.

On the contrary the O.P. Bank suspected the complaint as foul play maker who in their view made his wrongful gain. The complainant checked his Mobile but they came to the conclusion that either by the complainant or any of his family members might have committed such transaction in-connivances with the complainant. Therefore, on 01.06.2016 he lodged complaint at Cyber Police Station, Jalpaiguri detailing the incident Fact was diarised vide G.D.E. No. 35 dt. 07.06.2017 Again on 16.06.2017. he submitted an application to the O.P. State Bank of India seeking information Under R.T.I Act in respect of alleged transaction. Waiting for long period he did not get any fruitful result on 18.11.2017. He wrote a letter to the State Public Information Officer, S.B.I., Jalpaiguri under R.T.I. Act regarding steps taken from his end. In reply the General Chief Manager of S.B.I. informed him that they have not received any information from competent authority to return alleged transaction already taken place. The O.P. State Bank of India did not show any interest to settle the disputed matter. Rather they have dragged the case for harassment purpose. They have no fault to be deprived due to negligence of the Bank machinery. The complainant is of view that due to negligence of the O.P. State Bank of India for not maintaining standard of expected secrecy, causing leakage of A.T.M. details put the complainant to suffer financial loss. Therefore the Bank is liable to pay the amount demanded by the complainant.

Countering allegation of the complainant the O.P. State Bank of India stated inter-alia that the complainant has lodged a complaint on 19.05.2017 against the O.P. Service Manager. In reply to the Question No. 3 of interrogatories of the O.P. No. 1 and 2 the complainant has stated that on 19.05.2017 he made complaint to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India. Thus, above two statements are self-contradictory, but Branch Manager of State Bank of India is not a party to the case.

 Moreover, the complainant in reply to Question No. 3 of the interrogatories of O.P. No. 1 and 2 claims to have lodged complained on 20.05.2017 to the Branch Manager of State Bank of India. But there is no mention of any such complaint dt. 20.05.2017 in his original complaint filed before this Forum. It has been stated in clear word by the O.P. State Bank of India that the complainant being Bank Account Holder has conducted three successful transactions on 18.05.2017 by utilizing his Debit Card associated with his Account No. 20085330429. Transaction dt. 18.05.2017 as complained by the complainant is legal valid and successful transaction as per Bank regulation and as such there arises no liability of the part of the O.P. State Bank of India to refund the amount as claim by the complainant.

 The complainant Bank Account has been used in connection with Mobile payment application for payment of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) (20,000/- + 20,000/- + 10,000/-) to the PayTm and Airtel Money. System generated transaction details has been obtained from internal server of the State Bank of India showing that text message confirming transaction were successful delivered to Registered Mobile Phone No. 9434601091 of the complainant upon completion of three transactions. The complainant did not make any complain regarding theft and/or loss of his Mobile Phone associated with the Registered No. 9434601091. It is known fact that said Mobile was used by the complainant at the time of alleged transaction.

Both the A.T.M. Card and Savings Bank Account are linked with the REgistered Mobile Phone which was in possession of the complainant on the concern date and time. Therefore likelihood of carrying out any fraudulent transaction utilizing said card of the complainant is absolutely impossible. 

Moreover, the O.P. PayTm Payment Bank Limited has specifically admitted in their evidence that transaction reported by the complainant have been automatically executed on receiving valid and legal instruction from user. The transaction was carried out by using Debit Card Bearing No. xxxxxxx2868 of the complainant. The complainant did not allege loss or misplacement of his Debit Card and as such Debit Card was all along in possession of the complainant at the time of transaction. The complainant in reply to interrogatory of the O.P. State Bank of India has admitted that A.T.M. Card was used in connection with Savings Bank Account No. 20085330429. Transaction with Mobile Phone linked with Savings Bank Account has been successful Mobile was in physical possession of the complainant himself on the date and time when transaction said to have been carried out. The complainant made Written Complaint to the Inspector in Charge Cyber Cell of Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri on 01.06.2017. It has been admitted by the complainant that till date no person has been arrested by the Police Authorities on the basis of the complainant.

Therefore, police did not find any material to Register F.I.R. on the basis of the complainant lodged by the complainant. Responsibility to maintain secrecy with respect of Pin and OTP rests upon A/C Holder. The complainant being the same person is known to the O.P. State Bank of India. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and/or negligence on the part of the State Bank of India. The complainant clarified in his reply to the Question No. 8 and 9 of Interrogatories of O.P. State Bank of India that the O.P. Chief Manager State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri promptly lodged complained to cardoperationat.s.b.i.co.in to statement of Savings Bank Account No. 20085330429 of the complainant. Again in reply to the Question No. 10 Interrogatories of O.P. No. 1 and 2, the complainant has specifically admitted that S.B.I. Authority locked ATM facility operating to Bank Account upon receiving Phone Call from the complainant. So, the State Bank of India cooperated with the complainant from the very beginning. The complainant has categorically admitted in his reply to the Question No. 11 of as are noted in the particular column in respect of alleged transaction indicates third party client debited the amount from the account of the complainant. Hence the O.P. State Bank of India are not entitled to refund any such amount to the complainant which has been transferred through such party client/applicant to “PayTm” and “Airtel Money”. The transaction complained by complainant has been conducted through third party PayTm application namely Paytm and Airtel Money.

The O.P. Airtel Money payments Bank Limited stated inter-alia that the complainant has made vague claim that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deducted from his Bank Account by way of three different mode. Where no iota of evidence made by the complainant can be found to justify his claim. Detail averment made in the complainant is astronomical and baseless and nothing, but to make undue gain from the O.P. Airtel Money Payment Bank, the complainant has not submitted SMS contained in support of his allegation but the complainant himself is confused with regard to disputed transaction and number of Debit Transaction. The complainant in his letter dt. 19.05.2017 addressed to the Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri has referred to Debit Transaction Amounting to Rs. 30,000/-. On the other hand the complainant in his letter dt. 01.06.2017 made complaint to the I.C. Kotwali, P.S. that disputed amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) was debited.

Therefore, the complainant has varied his statement about the amount of disputed transaction. The complainant has refused to provide copy of S.B.I. Debit Card No. to the Airtel Bank Limited to verify details of transaction from its Database and payment copy unless Saving Bank the Account No. was provided the O.P. Airtel Money Payment Bank Limited will be unable to fetch details of disputed transaction and complete its finding No relief has been sought against the O.P. No. 3 Airtel Payment Bank Limited by the complainant.

Denying the material allegation against claim of the complainant the O.P. PayTm Payment Bank Limited stated inter-alia that the complainant has neither approached the O.P. PayTm Payment Bank Limited nor has ever claimed against the O.P PayTm Payment Bank. All the transaction reported by the complainant has been done on mandate to the concern Bank. Whoever, perform such transaction has details as well as security Passwords which is required by the O.P. State Bank of India. The O.P. PayTm is merely facilitator and an online conduit provide for payments having no technical or otherwise control over the secured transactions of Credit or Debit Cards that are performed and validated by the C.V.V. and Dynamic One Time Password (OTP) of Credit/Debit Cards of Holders. Whenever no customer holds to initiate any transaction through O.P. PayTm Payment Bank, the customer inserts his refund banking credential but has no liberty to Net Banking I.D., Card No., expiry Data, CVV on the Website base platform/ mobile application of O.P. PayTm Payment Bank save and except to initiate transaction by O.P. PayTm Payment Bank.

The Dynamic OTP was delivered at Mobile No. Registered against such Credit/Debit Card and once the same is verified by the issuing bank and subsequent to the receipt of the information from such bank regarding validity of the mode of payment, the technical server of Opposite Party PayTm automatically allows any order to be fulfilled. It is beyond the purview of O.P. PayTm Bank to monitor or control any authorization or non-authorization of the online payments, which happens through computer automatically. So, the liability if any exists it lies with the issuing bank which operate bank account as well amount court of the complainant.

Having regard to the evidence supported by exhibited documents it is found from the record that the complainant uses Mobile Bearing No. 919434601091 for three transaction on 18.05.2017 Three messages of debiting Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty Thousand Only) then Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) and thereafter Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty Thousand Only) totaling Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) from his account were received by the complainant at his Mobile. Two transactions of 20,000/-(Twenty Thousand Only) each totaling 40,000/- paid to the PayTem Bank on that valid date sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) was debited from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant and credited in Airtel Bank. The complainant has put details of his Debit Account No, OTP from Registered Mobile against which Three transactions were done successfully. After being debited of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant, he made false claim against the O.P. State Bank of India.

There is no deficiency of service because of the fact message has already been sent to the complainant at his registered mobile no. But those messages were deleted for the wrongful gain by the complainant. All the O.P.s’ State Bank of India, PayTem Bank, Airtel Money can not tell a lie against the complainant in consideration of the fact that the complainant has received. OTP No. against the Registered Mobile in connection with the complainant. But no one else even the bankers do not know the OTP No. at the time of each transaction. Furthermore, Debit Card No. and CVV including expiry month and year of the debit card are being known while transactions are being made by the complainant. After debited money of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) the complainant has made such false claim against of the State Bank of India, PayTem Bank and Airtel Money. The complainant is not entitled to get any refund in view of the fact that all the O.P.s’ in same tune said that Banking transactions were made by the complainant possessing Debit Card and Registered Mobile. Both the registered Mobile Number, Saving Bank Account number Debit Card number and number of O.T.P. at each transactions was known to the complainant but no one knows all above details.

In the result the case is fails,        

    According it is

                                             O R D E R E D :

             That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest. The complainant shall deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) in the Bank Account of Legal Aid Account maintained by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalpaiguri.