Haryana

Ambala

CC/334/2021

Karambeer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kwatra Filling Station - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	334 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	03.11.2021
Date of decision	:	12.12.2023

 

Karambeer Singh s/o Sh. Jagmal Singh, r/o Vill. Salempur Kohi, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, at present r/o H.No.245, Sector-D, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Kwatra Filling Station, Bilaspur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its Prop./Authorized signatory.
2. State Bank of India, Jagadhri, (00654) through its Manager.
3. State Bank of India, Main, The Mall, Ambala Cantt, through its Manager.
4. Mr. Vijay Randhawa, Googal Customer Care (Mob No.7439325743), Service to be effected through Regional Office, State Bank of India, Sector-17, Chandigarh.

….….  Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     None for the complainant.

                   Shri Mukesh Kumar, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                   Shri S.S. Garg, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 and 3.

                   Complaint against OP No.4 dismissed for want of address vide order dated 22.07.2022.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) and prayed as under:-  

1. to refund Rs.1298/- which were paid by the complainant in their account by online payment through credit card on   11.08.2021.

b). To direct OP No.2 to credit a sum of Rs. 24,999/- which were deducted from the account No. 38073781408.

1. To direct the OPs, to pay, jointly & severally, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  as compensation to the complainant on account of harassment, mentally  and physically and financial loss.   

d). To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.

382.  

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a retired Army person and is re-employed and presently serving as security guard in Indian Oil Corporation, Ambala Cantt. On 11.08.2021, the complainant got filled petrol in his vehicle/car worth Rs.1298/- from the filling station of OP No.1 and made the payment through credit card. The representative of OP No.1 told the complainant that his transaction of Rs.1298/- through credit card has been failed and he demanded the said amount of Rs.1298/- from the complainant which was paid in cash. The complainant in the night of same day received a message on his mobile phone for successfully payment of the said amount through his credit card. Thereafter on 12.08.2021, the complainant requested the Manager of OP No.1 and told him about the message of transaction of Rs. 1298/-. The Manager of OP No.1 checked the transaction of the said amount from its record and told the complainant that this transaction is not held in the record. OP No.1 further advised the complainant to verify his bank account. The complainant immediately went to State Bank of India, Ambala Cantt i.e. OP No. 3 and requested them to check his bank account and the official of OP No. 3 after checking the account of complainant told him to make a telephone call on SBI Customer Care toll free number in this regard and provided the Toll free No. i.e. 1800112211 to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made a telephonic call on the said Toll free Number and the person sitting on Toll free number told the complainant to speak with Mr. Vijay Randhawa in this regard and provided his mobile numbers i.e. 7439325743, 8145785093 to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made a mobile call to Mr. Vijay Randhawa and narrated the incident occurred with him. Vijay Randhawa told the complainant that the transaction of Rs. 1298/- is neither credited in the account of OP No.1 nor the amount is reversed back in the account of complainant and the same is pending in transit. Mr. Vijay Randhawa further told the complainant to move desk application to them and keep continuing talking with him while preparing the application. When the complainant started writing application, just within 4-5 minutes, the complainant received a message on his mobile with regard to the deduction of Rs. 24,999/- from his account. Thereafter, the complainant verified this transaction from his bank i.e. OP No.2 and came to know that OD loan of Rs. 2,39,100/- has been created in his bank account and out of the said amount the amount of Rs. 24,999/- has been withdrawn. The complainant has never applied for OD loan nor submitted any application or document to the OP No. 2. The complainant also reported the matter to SHO Cyber Crime in the office of S.P. Ambala vide complaint No. 3907 on dated 13.08.2021, but with no result. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant had already received back the amount of Rs.1298/- from his banker on 25.08.2021 in his account before filing of the said alleged complaint and the same is within the knowledge of the complainant but the complainant intentionally did not mention the same in his complainant; the complainant has filed the false, frivolous and vague complaint; the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer; the complainant is trying to suppress the true and material facts from this Commission etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the Manager of OP No.1 checked the transaction and verify the bank account and showed it to the complainant and told him that he has not received the amount of Rs. 1298/- through his credit card. The complainant received back the amount of Rs. 1298/- from his banker on 25/8/2021. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the matter involved in the complaint is a complicated one which requires recording of voluminous evidence and decision on intricate questions of law and facts, which are beyond the purview of this Commission; this complaint is not maintainable etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the complainant is having a saving bank account with the OP No 2. He never complained about any facts as alleged by him in the complaint. OP No.2 never gave any customer care toll free number to the complainant. He himself called on the number of OP No.4 and downloaded the Any Desk Application on his instructions. In this way he himself allowed a third person to use his mobile phone by way of downloading the above said application in his mobile. OP No.2 use to inform their customers not to share any OTP and not to download any such application or web link on asking of any third person. Despite that if any of the customer shares OTP or downloaded any application on the asking of any third person then in that case the bank shall not be held liable for any loss occurred to the said customer. The complainant is a user of SBI's YONO application, which he had downloaded himself and used the same to apply for an OD facility and had transferred the said amount and as such no fault of the bank can be found in the same. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary cost.
5.           Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the matter involved in the complaint is a complicated one which requires recording of voluminous evidence and decision on intricate questions of law and facts, which are beyond the purview of this Commission; this complaint is not maintainable; the present complaint is baseless and a flagrant abuse of the process of law to harass and extract money from the OPs etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the complainant never complained about any fact as alleged by him in the complaint. OP No.3 never gave any customer care toll free number to the complainant. The complainant himself called on the number of OP No. 4 and downloaded the Any Desk Application on his instructions. In this way he himself allowed a third person to use his mobile phone by way of downloading the above said application in his mobile. OP No.3 use to inform their customers not to share any OTP and not to download any such application or web link on asking of any third person. Despite that if any of the customer shares OTP or downloaded any application on the asking of any third person then in that case the bank shall not be held liable for any loss occurred to the said customer. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary cost.
6.           Complaint against OP No.4 dismissed for want of address vide order dated 22.07.2022.
7.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A, alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence of the complainant. Learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered documents as Annexure OP1/A to OP 1/C and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 tendered evidence of Sumit Yadav, Senior Associate, State Bank of India, Mall road, Ambala Cantt. (PF ID-7083106) as Annexure RW-3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 and 3.
8.           We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
9.           Learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating objections raised in the written version submitted that the Manager of OP No.1 checked his transaction and verify his bank account and showed it to the complainant and told him that he has not received the amount of Rs. 1298/- through his credit card. He further submitted that the complainant has received back the amount of Rs. 1298/- from his banker on 25/8/2021.
10.           Learned counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 while reiterating objections raised in the written version submitted that the complainant never complained about any fact as alleged by him in the complaint. OP No.3 never gave any customer care toll free number to the complainant. He further submitted that complainant himself called on the number of OP No.4 and downloaded the Any Desk Application on his instructions. He further submitted that in this way he himself allowed a third person to use his mobile phone by way of downloading the above said application in his mobile. He further submitted that if any of the customer shares OTP or downloaded any application on the asking of any third person then in that case the bank shall not be held liable for any loss occurred to the said customer.
11.           It may be stated here that as far as the dispute relating to payment of Rs.1298/- between the complainant and OP No.1 is concerned, the same stood redressed, as the said amount has admittedly been received back by the complainant on 25.08.2021 from his banker.
12.           Thus, now the dispute is only qua the debit of an amount of Rs.24,999/- from the account of the complainant maintained with OP No.2. Admittedly, the complainant is having his account at Jagadhari Bank i.e. with OP No.2.  It may be stated here that it is the definite case of the complainant that on verification from OP No.2, it was found that in the first instance, OD loan of Rs.2,39,100/- stood created in his bank account and thereafter only an amount of Rs.24,999/- stood automatically withdrawn from his account but the complainant never opted or gave any consent to OP No.2 for the said OD Loan. It is significant to mention here that lot of opportunities were available with OP No.2 to place on record any convincing evidence to prove that the  complainant had applied for OD loan of Rs.2,39,100/- as is evident from the document dated 13.08.2021, Annexure C-4 having been issued by OP No.2 only. OP No.2 even failed to place on record any correspondence had with the complainant on its YONO App. even to prove that the complainant had applied and availed the OD loan of Rs.2,39,100/- through the said YONO App. Under these circumstances, this Commission is left with no alternative than to hold OP No.2 deficient in providing service in the matter and responsible for reimbursement of the said amount of Rs.24,999/- illegally deducted/misused from the account of the complainant.
13.           Since, no deficiency in providing service has been proved on the part of OPs No.1, 3 and 4, as such, present complaint filed by the complainant against them is liable to be dismissed.
14.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OPs No.1,3 and 4 and partly allow the same against OP No.2 and direct it, in the following manner:-
    1. To reimburse/refund to the complainant, the amount of Rs.24,999/- alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date when the said amount stood deducted from the account of the complainant, till its realization.  
    2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP No.2 shall pay interest @8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 12.12.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President