Orissa

Cuttak

CC/116/2020

Sanjib Kumar Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnataka Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

K K Dash & associates

28 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.116/2020

Sanjib Kumar Nayak,

S/O:Late Hemant Kumar Nayak,

At:Professorpara,PO:College /Square,

P.S:Mangalabag,Dist:Cuttack-753003.                                                  ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Manager Head,

Karnataka Bank Ltd.,

Mahaveera Circle,Kankanady,Mangaluru-575002,

Dist:Dakshina Kannada,Karnataka.

 

2.       The Assistant General Manager,

Karnataka Bank Limited,Regional Office,

First Floor Office III,Diamod Prestige,

41A,RJC Bose Road,Kolkata,Pin-700017

 

3.      The Bank Manager,

Karnataka Bank Limited,

Cuttack Branch,Link Road,P.O:Arunodaya Market,

Cuttack-753012.                                                                 .... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    30.12.2020

Date of Order:   28.09.2022

 

For the complainant:                          Mr. K.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1 & 2  & 3:                Mr. M.B.Rao,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President             

            Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant is a credit-card holder bearing no.4377484859023189  issued by the Karnatak Bank where the complainant is a regular customer.  On 23.10.20 at about 6 P.M. the complainant had received an anonymous call through his mobile phone bearing no.9437032704 asking him to produce certain necessary documents and to contact customer care mobile phone no.9749979454 in order to up-to-date the “Paytm” account and if not, the same would be blocked within 24 hours.  The complainant thereby had followed the instructions by contacting through the mobile phone set of his wife bearing no.9337585194.  He had downloaded one quick support application, deleted existing “Paytm” application, Web address as given, payment/recharge through Website and followed CVV No. & OTP no. towards the transaction of Rs.10/- which he had shared including the SMS ULKW.  Subsequently, that day at about 6.32 P.M a transaction of Rs.50,737.50p was made despite decline of transaction and the card being blocked at about 6.15 P.M and an amount of Rs.10,275/- was done at “Raj Sahi Pay” dt.23.10.20 at about 6.44 P.M.  The total amount of Rs.1,52,212.50p was declined due to insufficient funds.  Another transaction of Rs.22,295/- was declined at “Raj Sahi Pay” due to insufficient funds on the same day at about 9.17 P.M.  Due to repeated blockage and providing of OTPs, the complainant who is a hardware engineer, could not market the spare parts of computers for which he had sustained a loss of Rs.3,00,000/-.  According to the complainant, the O.Ps had acknowledged to use his credit-card to the extent of Rs.1,52,000/- for their own purpose thereby making the complainant sustain financial loss for which according to the complainant, the miscreants had committed offences of misappropriation U/S-420,408 & 409 of IPC making the entire transaction in a fraudulent manner.  The O.Ps are making illegal demand repeatedly for a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- from the complainant by sending messages to the complainant electronically.  The complainant had therefore filed this case claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and harassment as and has also sought for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed copies of documents in order to prove his case.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case, out of whom O.P No.3 has filed his written version and subsequently as per the memo filed on behalf of the O.Ps no.1 & 2,they were allowed to adhere to the written version of O.P No.3.  According to the contesting O.Ps here in this case, the case of the complainant is not maintainable, it suffers from non-joinder of necessary party, the O.P bank has acted only as a making agency on behalf of the SBI Cards without any legal liability arising out of its user.  Thus, the SBI Cards being a necessary party in this case has not been arrayed in this case by the complainant. That apart, “Raj Sahi Pay” and “Paytm” are also separate legal entities which should have been made as parties to this case by the complainant.  The O.P bank has no role to play in the present case.  According to the O.Ps, the complainant had suffered for his own wrong done by sharing OTPs with unknown strangers who had called him on 23.10.20 and thereby had fallen in the track to the fraud-makers.  The Credit Card bearing No. 4377484859023189 was issued to the complainant by SBI Cards directly and the O.P bank had only acted as a post office by receiving application, those which were collected by SBI Cards subsequently.  The KYC documents also were collected from the O.P bank through the representatives of the SBI Cards and thus the O.P bank has no role to pay in the unprecedented incident as narrated by the complainant.  According to the O.Ps, the complainant cannot put the blame on them for his own lapses, commissions/omissions as made by him thereby losing a sum of Rs.1,52,229.50p.  Thus, the loss as said by the complainant to have been suffered to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- is never due to the lapses of service of the O.Ps and they were never deficient in their service towards the customers or even towards the complainant.  The complainant is rather bound by the bilateral contract and hence he is liable to make payment of Rs.1,52,000/- using his credit card in question.  Thus, the complaint case as filed being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            The O.Ps have also field several copies of documents in order to prove their case.

3.         From the averments as made in the complaint petition and from the contents of the written version from the side of all the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

            iii.        Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issue no.ii.

            Issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, the complainant is a customer before the O.P bank and had opted by filing application in order to obtain one SBI Credit Card.  After getting the card and obeying to the anonymous call as admitted by the complainant himself he had shared his secret OTPs even being a qualified hardware engineer as he so claims.  The result yielded in causing sufferance to him to the tune of Rs.1,52,000/-, and being aggrieved, he has filed this case arraying the O.Ps,  thereby claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- from them but after analysing and scrutinizing the evidence as available here in this case, it is noticed that there is no iota of evidence putforth by the complainant in order to come to a definite conclusion that due to the lapses caused by the O.Ps, the complainant had sustained such monetary loss to the tune of Rs.1,52,000/-.  Thus, in absence of any such evidence, this Commission cannot come to a conclusion arbitrarily that the O.Ps were deficient in their service towards the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iv.

            From the discussions as made above, the complainant though has filed this case before this Commission being aggrieved after suffering monetary loss to the tune of Rs.1,52,000/-, this Commission arrives at an irresistible conclusion that the case of the complainant is never maintainable and that he is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him against the O.Ps of this case.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 28^th day of   September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                                Member