Consumer Complaint No.111 of 2015

Date of filing: 05.5.2015                                                               Date of disposal: 03.02.2017

Complainant:               Buddhadeb Das, S/o. Late Nanda Dulal Das, resident of Village: Bahadurpur, Post Office: Abhirampur, Police Station: Aushgram, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 144.

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:            ICICI Bank, Gushkara Branch, represented through its Branch Manager, Sri Ram Complex, Station Road, District: Burdwan.       

Present:      Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.

                        Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:      Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the Opposite Party:  Ld. Advocate, Suman Bez.

J U D G E M E N T

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the Op did not refund his amount which the OP has transferred from his account to another account without his prior intimation.

            The fact of the complainant is that he is an SBI account holder of the OP vide A/c. No. 180101500012 and ID No. 527284461. The complainant opened the said account by depositing Rs. 20,000=00 before the Op and the OP issued a pass book in favour of the complainant. The complainant further submits that on 27.8.2014 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000=00before the OP and the Op endorsed the same in the pass book of the complainant i.e. the total balance in the account of the complainant remained as Rs. 1,69,990=00. The complainant was suffering from fever and was admitted in the Jamtara Hospital on 05.9.2014. On 11.9.2014 when the complainant went to the office of the OP for updating his pass book then it came to the knowledge of the complainant that an amount of Rs. 1, 60,000=00 has been debited from the account of the complainant. Being very much surprised the complainant made contact with the Manager of the Op but the same did not give any explanation of the said transaction. He only replied that the amount of Rs. 1, 60,000=00 has been transferred to a fund but he did not give any explanation regarding the said fund. In this context it is pertinent to mention that from the endorsement in the pass book of the complainant it appears that the said amount has been transferred to an account bearing No. 000642623482. The complainant then made a written representation on 05.01.2015 before the OP but they neither gave any reply of the letter of the complainant nor they refund the said amount in the account of the complainant. As the complainant could not get any relief from the OP, the complainant was compelled to file this case before this ld. Forum. Hence, the case arose. The complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 1,60,000=00 in his account, Rs. 50,000=00 as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Rs. 25,000=00 for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000=00 as litigation cost.

            Notice was served upon the OP. The OP contested the case by filing written version.

            The case of the OP is that prior to transfer of funds to a third party beneficiary using the internet banking facility, the said third party beneficiary shall be required to be registered and added as a payee in the records of the OP. Upon initiating the process for registration of a third party beneficiary an automated unique registration number (URN) shall be delivered to the complainant being the prayer at (i) the registered mobile number of the complainant as per the records of the OP and (ii) the registered email ID of the complainant as per the records of the OP. Verification and authentication in terms of confirmation being provided by the complainant being the payer by keying in the URN received in the manner as aforesaid shall result in addition of the shared by the complainant with a third party. A copy of the reverse of a card displaying grid values and the copy of the account opening form containing the acknowledgement receipt of the internet banking user ID and password is annexed and collectively marked to display the information required to complete a transaction pertaining to transfer of funds using the internet.  The OP further states that the complainant has not been diligent in monitoring transitions from the said account and are trying to pass on lapses and latches on their part onto the shoulders of the OP and make a windfall therefrom. It is not the case of the complainant and neither has it been disputed by the complainant that the user ID and password required for access to the internet banking facility have at all points in time not remained in the possession of the complainant. It is further not the case of the complainant that the mobile number as registered with the OP does not pertain to the complainant. The OP further state that a full proof and detailed security mechanism has been put in place by the OP for carrying out transfer of funds using the online banking platform and latches and/or lapses on the part of the complainant have resulted in the loss of funds as alleged. The OP repeats and reiterates the submissions as hereinabove and states that upon addition and registration of a payee and transfer of funds from the said account into the account of the third party beneficiary, alerts by way of a SMS are notified to the complainant at the mobile number registered as per the records of the OP. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the OP third party beneficiary as a payee and enable the complainant to transfer funds into the account of such a payee. Alters by way of a SMS are duly notified to the complainant at the registered mobile number of this complainant. The OP further states that upon registration of a beneficiary/payee, prior to transfer of funds to the beneficiary, the payer/complainant shall be required to key in the grid values as appearing on the reverse of the debit card available with the complainant along with a onetime password (OTP). It is not the case of the complainant that the debit card or the mobile number were not in possession of the complainant at the time of alleged fraudulent transfer or that the mobile number does not pertain to the complainant and no case has been made out by the complainant to that effect. It is submitted that the complainant has accepted receipt of the internet banking user ID and password at the time of account opening as may be evident from a perusal of the acknowledgment receipt provided by the complainant at the time of account opening and a copy whereof is annexed herewith. In the absence of a case being made out and such facts deemed to have been accepted it is vehemently stated that the transfer of funds cannot be possible without availability of the user ID and password required to access the internet banking facility along with the debit card and mobile number registered as per the records of the bank. Absence of any of the aforesaid confidential information and documents cannot result in successful transfer of funds. All such documents and information being in the possession of the complainant the alleged fraudulent transfer could not have taken place unless such confidential information and documents have been state and submit that the unintended beneficiary of the funds could not have been added as a payee without the same being authorized by the complainant considering the URN required for validation and confirmation of new payees could be only know to the complainant or the authorized personnel thereof and similarly transfer of funds could have been only completed upon entering the grid values appearing on the reverse of the debit card and the onetime password sent to the complainant at the mobile number registered as per the records of the bank. It is further stated that the alleged unintended beneficiary maintains an account with the ICICI Bank wherein the funds have been purportedly transferred. It is thus submitted that the said alleged unintended beneficiary be added as a necessary party and the objections and or views of such beneficiary be duly be obtained as regards whether the funds have been fraudulently transferred or genuinely transferred by the complainant on account of receivable by such beneficiary in order to efficaciously adjudicate the instant dispute. This OP also stated that in order to ensure suitable security measures for web applications the OP has in force reasonable mitigating measures against various web security risks. A defense in depth strategy exists by applying robust security measures across various technology layers and the authentication methodologies involve three basic factors being (i) a user ID, login ID, (ii) a password, PIN; and (iii) physical authentication by the complainant by registering the beneficiary and entering grid values as appearing on the reverse of the card along with the onetime password. The Op has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons:-

Perused all the papers and documents relating to pass book, opening of bank account etc. submitted by the complainant, as well as, by the OP. From the transaction of the bank account it is evident from the relevant pass book that on 04.9.2014 Rs. 1, 60,000=00 has been debited from the complainant’s account vide BIL/000642623482/F. The complainant omits in his complaint the letter “F” which the OP explains “F” as fund i.e. a transfer of fund was made on 04.9.2014. In the written version the OP has argued that fund transfer cannot be possible if the complainant has no internet banking option. But on perusal of the document submitted by the OP there is a ‘welcome kit acknowledgement’ from where it is seen that the complainant has confirmed having signed on the signature bond of the ATM cum Debit Card and PIN and internet banking user ID password relating to his savings bank account i.e. the complainant has virtually had the option of internet banking by which the complainant has transferred his fund of Rs. 1, 60,000=00 by using internet banking and the relevant ATM. From the document vide Annex. “A” it is evident that authorized signature not valid unless signed. Therefore, the complainant cannot deny that he has no internet benefit regarding transfer of fund. Therefore, the complainant has actually transferred Rs. 1, 60,000=00 using internet benefit. Hence, the case of the complainant fails. Accordingly, it is

O r d e r e d

that the Consumer Complaint being No. 111/2016 is dismissed against the Ops on contest without any cost.

            Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.

                   (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                      President      

                                                                                                           DCDRF, Burdwan

                    (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                    Member

                     DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                      (Silpi Majumder)                        (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                                                              Member                                             Member

                                                     DCDRF, Burdwan                            DCDRF, Burdwan