IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 22nd day of November, 2021
Filed on 1.10.2021
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.238/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Parvati Federal Bank
D/o Radhakrishnan.M.C Head Office
Thanal House, Puliyoor.P.O P.O.Box No.103
Chengannur, Alappuzha Aluva, Kerala
(Party in person) (Adv. C.Parameswaran)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1. Material averments of the complaint in short as follows:-
Complainant is a consumer of opposite party since 2015. After completing her MBA from Amrita University in the yar 2020 she was searching for a job. The complainant had submitted her CV in various firms including TATA Consultancy Services and was waiting for interview calls.
On 28/8/2020 at about 4.34.PM complainant had received a call from TATA Consultancy (Phone No 9911050291) since she had submitted CV there, with no doubt, attended interview with their HR Manager by introducing one Miss. Pooja from TATA Consultancy Service. During interview HR Manager phished complainant’s bank informations and told her to inform them the OTP which they send for the conformation of complainant’s given phone number. Once she gave the OTP and then the HR Manager told it was not correct and she would get another OTP, that also the complainant told him. While the interview was going on complainant revived message from bank regarding the transactions of money from her account ie, Rs.20001/- transfer to Airtel money and Rs. 20001/- transfer to Aeron money. Immediately the complainant contacted with opposite party’s customer care and report the electronic banking transaction fraud. Customer care blocked complainant’s ATM Card. Thereafter no further action was taken by opposite party even if she submitted a written complaint. The complainant also informed the customer care to withhold the amount within Airtel and Aeron money since the bank has authority to do so, but nothing done by the bank. Further the complainant preferred a petition to local police, Chengannur. The opposite party was not protected the complainant as not protected the complainant as its customer or provide a suitable response even if a fraud case reported. Hence this complaint to compensate her loss.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is neither maintainable in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has put up distorted facts before this Hon’ble Commission to suit her case and the complainant is thus guilty of suggestio false and suppressio vari. The complainant is an account holder of the opposite party bank and is provided with an ATM card for enabling the withdrawal of the cash from the account. The complainant was frequently using the ATM for withdrawal.
The complainant had complained to the opposite party about the fraudulent use of her debit car. Upon receipt of the complaint the opposite party has verified the journal transactions and found the withdrawal to be successful. The opposite party immediately blocked the debit card so as to prevent further unauthorized use of the card. The instant complaint filed against the opposite party bank is bad for non joinder of parties. The alleged claim of the complainant is sustainable only against the third parties involved in the transactions depicted in the complaint.
The opposite party bank has informed its customers including the complainant that they shall not provide their debit card details /ATM PIN/ Personal information to any one over email/SMS/Phone Calls. Without divulging the details as aforesaid to third parties, no one can access the accounts maintained at the opposite party. In this case the complainant had divulged the details of her card credentials, PIN number and OTP number to 3rd parties which entails in the alleged unauthorized withdrawal. The aforesaid transactions done by the complainant were debited in the account and the same is evidenced by the Electronic Journal entries kept and maintained by the opposite party in the usual and ordinary course of its business. The successful withdrawal of the amounts from the complainant’s Account is confirmed as per the log/ATM Journal of the opposite party bank. The claim of the complainant that the opposite party bank is liable to return the amount of Rs.40,002/- to the complainant is per-se false and the said contention appears to have been made with the oblique intentions. The complainant is well aware of the true facts and is just trying to en-cash her fault and negligence in operating the transaction through the digital plat form.
The complainant had disclosed her Card credentials, Pin Number, OTP number etc to 3rd parties flouting the financial discipline in the digital plat form mandated by the opposite party bank at the time of issuance of the said facility. The complainant has shared her confidential card details with someone else and the said fact has been specifically admitted by her in the complaint. Thus the complainant is also a privy to the fraudulent loss of money claimed by her. The complainant is trying to put the blame of her fault in to the shoulders of the opposite party. There is callous negligence on the part of the complainant in dealing with the operation in the digital plat form. Based on the complaint a criminal complaint was lodged with the Police Authorities and the same is underway. The opposite party bank had afforded all support including handing over of relevant datas of the investigating authorities to detect the culprit who had looted the alleged sum from the complainant based on the complaint lodged by the complainant in the matter. The circumstances of the instant case warrants that the issue is to be adjudicated by adducing voluminous evidence both oral and documentary and hence, the instant complaint cannot be decided within the time frame of the Commission.
The complainant has not sustained any loss as alleged at the hands of the opposite party bank. There is no illegality and impropriety in the matter. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The complaint is devoid of any merits. Hence it is liable to be dismissed with costs of the opposite party bank.
3. On the basis of the above pleadings the points to be considered are:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as sought for in the complaint?
3. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 and A7 series from the side of complainant and oral evidence of RW1 from the side of opposite party. Heard both sides.
4. Point No.1 and 2:-
PW1, the complainant filed affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A6. Ext.A7 series marked through RW1 during cross examination by the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that on 28/8/2020 she lost Rs.40,002/- from her account and would allege deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is averred in the complaint that she had disclosed the account details and OTP number during interview attended with TCS. During cross examination by the counsel appearing for opposite party she admitted that she had disclosed her account details, IFSC code, OTP etc, to 3rd party flouting the financial discipline in the digital platform mandated by the opposite party. PW1 would further depose that she had shared OTP number on 2nd time also while attending interview through phone. PW1 categorically admitted in cross examination that the withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 40,002/- was occurred due to the sharing of OTP number. Thus it can be safely concluded that there is callous negligence on the part of the complainant in doing online banking transactions. If the complainant would have followed the precautions of the opposite party regarding the banking transactions the alleged loss would have been averted. It has come out in evidence that withdrawal of Rs.40,002/- from the account of the complainant was occasioned due to the fault of the complainant. During cross examination PW1 reiterated that she knew the condition not to share the details generated from the account to 3rd party. On that count the complainant is not entitled to get any leniency for her own negligence. This position is settled by Hon’ble National Commission in the decision reported in SBI Vs. K.K.Bhalla 2011(2) CPJ 106. Applying the said principle in this case it can be safely concluded that the circumstances let to the alleged loss of the complainant was due to negligence in sharing the bank credentials especially the OTP number of the online transaction to 3rd party. The fraudulent withdrawals occurred because the OTP number fell in wrong hands at the instance of the complainant. Accordingly we found no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
5. Point No.3:-
In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 22nd day of November, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Parvati (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Bank Pass book
Ext.A2 - Copy of Transaction Details
Ext.A3 - Statement dtd. 30/9/2021
Ext.A4 - Copy of Acknowledgement Receipt of Petition
Ext.A5 - Copy of Request letter dtd. 5/12/2020
Ext.A6 - Copy of Adhar card
Ext.A7 series - Copy of Pass book
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Rakesh Krishnan( Witness)
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
