Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/322/2021

Ravinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                      Sh.Rajbir Singh, President   

                   Smt.Harisha Mehta  &          Sh.K.S.Nirania, Members

    

                                          Complaint No. 322 of 2021.

   Date of Institution: 24.12.2021

   Date of order: 21.11.2023.

 

Ravinder Kumar son of Shanker Lal resident of village Sadalpur Tehsil Adampur District isar at presnt atat present residing at village Dhand Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1.General Managed Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank SHGB House Plot No.l, Sector 3 Rohtak, District Rohtak Haryana 124001.

2.Regional Manager, Regional Office Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Opposite BSNL Exhcnage Sirsa Road, Fatehabad.

3.Manager Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Dhand Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

…..Opposite parties

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act

 

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Sh.Vinay Sharma, Adv. for Ops.

                             

ORDER:

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                      Brief facts, of the complaint are that complainant was having saving bank account bearing No.82560100001656 with Ops alongwith Credit Card-cum-ATM Rupay; that with the account in question, mobile No.9466674448 was also attached; that the complainant has been using the said account since 31.07.2017; that the complainant is also having another account bearing No.501002195358917 with HDFC Bank, Adampur for the use in agricultural work/transactions and the mobile No.9466674448 was also attached with this number; that the complainant received a call from No.9350062209 and thereafter  he closed the account maintained with HDFC Bank on 26.12.2020 after withdrawing Rs.80,000/-; that the complainant also received another call from 8777629109 and thereafter in a transaction Rs.25,000/- were withdrawn despite the fact that the complainant was not using the mobile in question; that thereafter the complainant intimated the bank and further got his account closed due to above said fraud transactions; that the complainant also lodged his complaint with the concerned police station and cyber crime police station besides lodging the complaint with higher authorities  but no action was taken. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

2.                     On notice, Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and suppression of material facts etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that on 29.12.2020 the complainant deliberately through UPI transferred the amount of Rs.25,000/- to another person (Salimum Nisha), therefore, the Ops cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3.                     In evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C6 in support of his contentions. On the other hand, the Ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

4.                     We have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and also perused the record placed on case file minutely.

5.                     The complainant has come  with the plea that an amount of Rs.25,000/- were withdrawn from his account, which was being maintained by him with Ops, fraudulently and regarding this he lodged his complaints (Annexure C5 and Annexure C6) with  concerned authorities but neither any action was taken nor his money was refunded.

6.                     Per contra, learned counsel for the Ops has argued that the amount of Rs.25,000/- was transferred through UPI to another person (Salimun Nisha) and in support of his contentions learned counsel for the Ops drew the attention of this Commission towards Annexure R2, Annexure R3, therefore, the Ops are not liable for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.                     Before proceeding further let us see What is UPI and how it works and what is required for UPI transaction?

UPI: Unified Payments Interface (UPI) is a system that powers multiple bank accounts into a single mobile application (of any participating bank), merging several banking features, seamless fund routing & merchant payments into one hood.

 

To perform UPI payments, a valid identification known as VPA (Virtual Payment Address) is required. The VPA serves as the payment address for UPI money transfers. When conducting online transfers between banks through UPI, the money is actually sent from one VPA to another.

 

8.                     The Ops in their reply have specifically mentioned that the amount of Rs.25,000/- was transferred through UPI and perusal of Annexure R3 reveals that said UPI transaction was made through No.UPI/036415445370/P2A/9188. The Ops have also placed another document on the case file as Annexure R2 to clarify that the said transaction was made to Sulimun Nisha. This transaction makes it clear that money was actually sent/transferred through UPI to one VPA to another and the Ops by way of leading evidence (Annexure C4) have disclosed the address of receiver of that amount. In the present compliant, the complainant has levelled allegations of fraudulent transaction of Rs.25,000/- but he has not placed any authentic and reliable evidence on the case file to show that as to for what kind of fraud had taken place and as to how the Ops are responsible for this rather the evidence led by the Ops clearly shows that the payment was actually sent through VPA to another disclosing the address of receiver in Annexure C4.

9.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 21.11.2023

 

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                       (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                               Member                                             President