Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/339/2023

ASHOK KUMAR GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO, FINO PAY TECH LTD. BANK, - Opp.Party(s)

ASHOK KUMAR GOEL

18 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	339 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	20.11.2023
Date of Decision	:	18.09.2024

 

 

Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel, Age 57 years,  son of Shri Mangat Ram Goel, resident of House No.3406, 1^st Floor, Police Society, Sector 51-D, Chandigarh, now residing at House No.AG-447, Sector 109, Emaar Mohali Hill, SAS Nagar (Mohali) 140306.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Managing Director & CEO, FINO Pay Tech Ltd. Bank, Fino payment Bank Ltd. Plot No.D-507/2^nd Floor, MIDC Turbhet, Navi Mumbai.
2. Manager, Fino Payment Bank Ltd., Branch Kharabwadi, City Pune, District Pune, Gali No. 2912, Tal Khed, District Pune, Kharabwadi, Pin Code 410505.
3. Chandan Kumar son of Sonu Ram resident of village Nadha, Gram Panchayat Bara, Block and Tehsil Hilsa, District Nalanda (Bihar).

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties..

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel, appellant in person.

Sh. Varun Dhawan, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

Respondents No.1 & 3 exparte vide order dated 22.03.2024. 

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER 

                   This appeal has been filed by the complainant – Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel (appellant herein) against order dated 23.10.2023 vide which, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’) has dismissed his consumer complaint No.672 of 2021.

2.                Briefly stated the facts before the District Commission were that the appellant began constructing his house in Mohali in May 2019 and required cement. He came across an online offer from Ambuja Cement, which was advertised at a lower price. However, the advertisement turned out to be fake, created by respondent No.3/opposite party No.3 and others to defraud people. Entrapped by the offer, the appellant transferred ₹82,500 to respondent No.3 on 19.09.2019, which was immediately moved to another account. The appellant averred that respondents No.1 & 2/opposite parties No.1 & 2, operating the bank, failed to follow RBI guidelines, opening respondent No.3’s account with only an Aadhaar card, without proper KYC verification. The appellant claimed that this negligence allowed the account to be used for fraudulent activities, violating the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

3.                In response, respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 stated that the appellant/complainant placed the order on a third-party website, which it had no control over. It was stated that since the funds were immediately transferred, placing a lien on the account was impossible and the appellant’s request for a refund was denied because he approached the Bank 15 days later. It claimed that the appellant/complainant did not use its services directly and the allegations were baseless. Respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 stated that it followed RBI regulations when opening respondent No.3/opposite party OP No.3’s account and denied any lapses in the process. It was further stated that the appellant/complainant was not its customer.

4.                The Ld. District Commission while dismissed the complaint held that the appellant/complainant is not a consumer qua opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the allegations levelled qua OPs No.1 & 2 are of without any iota of evidence. It further observed that the complainant has made allegations of fraud and cheating against opposite party No.3, which was beyond its jurisdiction. Thus, the Ld. District Commission grated liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate authority/tribunal/court for redressal of his grievance.

5.             While assailing the impugned order, the appellant/complainant argued that enticed by the fraudulent offer made by opposite party No.3, he deposited Rs.82,500/- on 19.09.2019 into opposite party No.3’s account. However, this amount was immediately transferred by opposite party No.3 to another account. He further argued that opposite parties No.1 and 2 failed to follow the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) guidelines in managing the account of opposite party No.3. It was further argued that specifically, the account mentioned in the fraudulent online advertisement was allegedly opened by opposite party No.2 using only opposite party No.3’s Aadhaar Card, without properly verifying Know Your Customer (KYC) norms or confirming its local address in Pune. This lapse, according to the appellant, represented a serious breach of banking regulations by opposite parties No.1 and 2 as it enabled the fraudulent account to be used for illegal activities violating both RBI rules and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

6.                The Ld. District Commission has held that the appellant/complainant does not qualify as a consumer in relation to opposite parties No.1 and 2. However, upon review, we find ourselves unconvinced by this conclusion for reasons outlined below.  The appellant/complainant has presented evidence, notably the payment receipt (found on page 20 of the District Commission file), proving that he paid Rs.82,500/- to opposite party No.3 for the purchase of cement bags intended for the construction of his house. According to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer only needs to prove that consideration was paid for goods or services, regardless of whether those goods were delivered. In this case, the appellant/complainant has clearly established that despite making the payment, opposite party No.3 failed to supply the cement bags. Additionally, it is alleged that opposite party No.3 engaged in unfair trade practices by fraudulently accepting the payment and then disappearing, without delivering the goods. Moreover, the appellant/complainant contends that this fraudulent act was facilitated due to the negligence of opposite parties No.1 and 2, who allegedly failed to perform proper Know Your Customer (KYC) verification when opening the account in question, maintained by opposite party No.2, where the appellant’s money was transferred. The appellant/complainant has successfully demonstrated his status as a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Unfortunately, the Ld. District Commission failed to address these critical issues in its order. Given these circumstances, we believe this case must be remanded back to the Ld. District Commission for a fresh evaluation on its merits.  However, the Ld. District Commission shall not touch the issue qua status of the appellant/complainant as consumer because this Commission is of the view that the appellant/complainant falls under the definition of consumer qua the opposite parties. 

7.                For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the Ld. District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh for decision on merits, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of record and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the parties.

8.                The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh on 30.09.2024.

9.                Certified copies of this order alongwith the record be sent to the Ld. District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, so as to reach there well before the date fixed.

10.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge and also through email/whatsapp.

11.           File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

 18.09.2024.

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad