PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 24.01.2013, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 564/2011, “The Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Lt. Col. Jagdeep Gahlot”, vide which while dismissing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 08.09.2011, allowing consumer complaint No. 1638 of 2009, was upheld. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent,Lt. Col. Jagdeep Gahlot (retired) filed the consumer complaint in question under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi, saying that he had two savings bank accounts with the Punjab National Bank (PNB), Sector-14 Branch, Gurgaon jointly with his wife Mrs. Sarla Gahlot. The version of the complainant is that on 04.11.2008, while he was on business trip to Chandigarh, he received a telephonic call from Mr. J.S. Beniwal, Dy. Manager of the petitioner-Bank, stating that two transactions had been made in his two accounts, one for Rs.26,000/- and the other for
Rs.19,000/- on Internet Banking and the above amounts had been withdrawn from his savings accounts and transferred to some account in Punjab National Bank, Moradabad. On the next day, i.e. 05.11.2008, the complainant met Mr. J.S. Beniwal in the Bank and he was shown the account details, including photograph of the individual who had withdrawn money. He was informed by the Bank that his account had been frozen and his money was safe and was likely to be returned in due course of time. Thereafter, he made a formal request to the Bank on 06.11.2009, followed by reminders for the return of his money, but the Bank did not take any step to return money to his account. The bank lodged an FIR with the Police in the second week of August, 2009 and the investigation was still pending. The bank sent him a letter on 09.10.2009, stating that the fault was of the complainant and the bank was not accountable for the loss. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, requesting for the refund of his money along with interest @ 24% per annum and a compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs for mental harassment etc. and Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation. 3. In their reply before the District Forum, Punjab National Bank denied allegations, saying that their Internet banking system had not been hacked by anyone and was working alright. On the contrary, the complainant had not been able to manage his Internet Log-in and Password properly in a secure manner, which resulted in transfer of money from his accounts and the Bank was not responsible for the loss in any manner. It has also been stated in the reply that for both the accounts, the Internet ID and passwords were duly delivered to the complainant on 01.09.2008 as per his instructions and acknowledgement for the same was also taken. The transfer took place to account of one Shri Sahil Mallick at Moradabad, Civil Lines Branch of Punjab National Bank, from where the money was withdrawn by the account holder on the same day from different ATMs. The transfer took place with the help of the authorized Log-in password only and the bank was not responsible for the transfer of the money. The bank also denied that their officer had made any call to the complainant. 4. The District Forum vide order dated 08.09.2011, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/OP to refund Rs.45,000/- along with 9% interest till realization, Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges. An appeal made against this order, was ordered to be dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person and examined the record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, stated that the version given by the complainant in his complaint and the letter dated 06.11.2008 sent by him to the bank were different. In the letter dated 06.11.2008 from the complainant and his wife, it had been stated as following: “1. We had submitted our pass-books for the above two saving accounts to your bank on 05 Nov 2008 for updating. We find that some entries as listed below are unexplained. The amounts debited to our accounts have not been withdrawn by us, either in person or through issue of cheques to any third party: (a) Ac No. 4099000100007514 for Rs.19,000/- on 03 Nov 2008 (b) Ac No. 4099000100014846 Rs.26,000/- on 03 Nov 2008”. 7. It is made out from the above that the complainants learnt about the debit of the amounts of Rs.26,000/- and Rs.19,000/- from their accounts when the Passbooks were given to the bank for updating. In the complaint, however, it is stated that the complainant came to know about this transfer from a telephonic call from Mr. J.S. Beniwal on 04.11.2008, after which he visited the Bank on 05.11.2008. The two versions are entirely different. Further, the learned counsel argued that the bank had provided Internet Passwords for the two accounts of the complainant and his wife on 01.09.2008 as per his request and the complainant had signed the relevant receipt, a copy of which had been placed on record. Thereafter, on 05.09.2008, the Log-in Password as well as Transaction Password had been changed, obviously by the complainant himself. It was clear therefore, that the two payments in question had been made through Internet banking using the transaction password. No official of the bank was responsible in the matter in any manner; neither any employee had been named or prosecuted during police investigation. Learned counsel vehemently argued that if any fraud had been committed in the matter, it was the subject of criminal investigation only. The consumer foras were not concerned in any manner with the case as there has been no deficiency in service in any manner. The learned counsel stated that if the Internet banking system maintained by the bank had been hacked in any manner, it would have amounted to loss of crores of rupees, but in the present case, an amount of only
Rs.45,000/- was involved. Learned counsel further stated that as per the terms and conditions governing Internet Banking, the Bank was not liable for any loss due to unauthorized transfer of funds through unauthorized access, phishing attacks, and hijack or by way of any other cyber-attacks etc. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the order passed by the State Commission, saying that the State Commission had taken an erroneous view while deciding the appeal in question. The orders passed by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission should therefore be set aside and the complaint should be dismissed. 8. In reply, the respondent stated in person that he was informed about the said incident by the Deputy Manager of the Bank as stated in his complaint and he had also gone to the bank the next day, when he was told that his money shall be returned. The respondent/complainant stated that the said transaction had not been carried out by him. He also stated that the person involved in the said incident had carried out two more such transactions in which the bank branch at Chennai was involved. The complainant also stated that he had received only one password from the bank and not the transaction password. He admitted that he had changed the Internet password received from the bank, but the transaction password was not received by him. The complainant has also drawn our attention to E-mail messages exchanged between him and one Vijaya Kumar about similar incident. He also referred to copies of the screen-shots about the Internet banking, saying that the bank had manipulated the same. 9. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The basic issue involved in the present case is regarding the transfer of amounts of Rs.26,000/- and Rs.19,000/- from the accounts of the complainant and his wife to some other accounts through Internet banking. The petitioner has taken the stand that they had provided the User-ID, and two passwords-one Internet Password and the other Transaction password for each account to the complainant. The petitioner has also produced documents to prove that the Internet password as well as transaction password were duly changed on 05.11.2008. The bank was therefore, not responsible for the transactions made on Internet banking. The complainant stated during the hearing before us that he had received only one password and the transaction password was to be allotted separately. However, the complainant has not been able to explain in any manner how the two passwords, including the transaction password were changed on 05.11.2008. The contention made by the complainant that the bank had manipulated the screen-shots etc., is not substantiated by any evidence or record. On the other hand, the bank has been able to give a convincing explanation that their Internet banking system was not hacked in any manner. Had there been any hacking etc., it would have resulted into loss of crores of rupees and not a small amount of only Rs.45,000/-. 10. In so far as, the lodging of FIR with the police is concerned, the said FIR was lodged in August, 2009 by the petitioner itself. It has been stated that the investigation into the same has not been completed yet. From the overall facts and circumstances of the case, however, it is clear that if any unauthorized transaction has been made by anybody, it is subject of criminal investigation only. Any deficiency on the part of the bank towards the complainant has not been proved anywhere and hence, it is not justified to provide relief to the complainant by the consumer
fora. 11. Based on the discussion above, it is held that the District Forum as well as the State Commission have taken an erroneous view in the matter, resulting in injustice to the petitioner as any deficiency in service or negligence on their part has not been established. The contention made in the complaint that one Deputy Manager gave a telephonic call to the complainants has been denied by the petitioner; neither it has been proved by the complainant by means of any evidence. 12. In view of the above facts, the present petition is allowed and the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. The consumer complaint, in question, is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. |
