Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Arya
Opponents through Lrd. Adv. Doiphode
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(24/01/2014)
This complaint is filed by the account holder against the bank for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a resident of Hande Wadi Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 28. The opponents are the scheduled bank and its branch at Pune. It is the case of the complainant that he has saving account bearing no. 10210400006306 in opponent branch at Hadapsar. The opponent has encouraged the complainant to use the internet banking service. On 7/10/2008, the complainant had received e-mail under e-mail address of
2] The opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version. They have admitted the contentions as regards account of the complainant in Hadapsar branch. It is also not disputed that amount of Rs. 49,100/- was siphoned from his account to fraudulent account of Mr. Kenny Manak Singh Bawa. But it is the case of the opponent that the complainant himself is negligent. He himself shared his password, login ID and transaction password to unknown person by sending mail. It is specifically denied by the opponent that they have caused deficiency in service. It has also explained that, as nobody has complained about the previous transaction of transfer of amount from the account of Mr. Shailesh Arun Mistry to fraudulent account, the said account could not be closed or banned, as the opponents were under impression that the said transaction was genuine transaction. Ultimately, the opponent lodged complaint against the fraudulent account holder and the investigation of the said matter is pending. It is also contended by the opponent that complainant and other three persons visited Hadapsar branch and threatened the branch manager, hence the branch manager constrained to lodge the complaint against complainant in the police station. That complaint was genuine onw and due to said complaint the visa of the complainant was withhold. As the amount was transferred from the complainant’s account to another account due to own negligence of the complainant, he can not take benefit of these grounds. The opponents have contended that, as there is no deficiency in service, the complaint be dismissed.
3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has established that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponent? | In the negative. |
5. | What order? | Complaint is dismissed. |
REASONS :-
4] The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant had saving account in the Hadapsar branch of the opponent bank and an amount of Rs. 49,100/- was siphoned from that account. The complainant himself has admitted that as he had received e-mail, he felt that the e-mail was sent from the opponent, hence he gave certain information for updating his account and thereafter somebody has hacked his account and siphoned money from his account to fraudulent account. It is the case of the opponent that all the account holder were warned not to share their login ID, password or transaction password to any unknown person. The complainant is well aware about the internet banking, still he had submitted information to unknown person and due to own negligence of the complainant, amount was siphoned from his account to another account. It is the case of the opponent that they have initiated criminal proceeding against the fraudulent account holder and the investigation is pending. As regards the previous incidence of siphoning of money to the fraudulent account, it is explained by the opponent that, nobody has made complaint about the said transaction; hence fraudulent account was not banned or closed. It reveals from the correspondence made by the complainant with the opponent that the complainant himself has referred that somebody has hacked his account and siphoned money from his account. This Forum does not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opponent, as no active participation of the opponent revealed in siphoning of amount from the account of the complainant to third party. The investigation as regards the fraudulent transaction is pending, hence this Forum is of the opinion that, as the complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service, he is not entitled for compensation on any ground. In the result, we answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint stands dismissed with
no order as to the costs.
2. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
3. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 24/01/2014
