BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 01.07.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR  :       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M :      LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 2045/2018

ORDER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

01.    The opposite party has filed this Appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order dated: 26.09.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.242/2017 by the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.

02.    Heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties on record.

03.    The District Forum after enquiring into the matter had allowed the consumer complaint No.242/2017 on 26.09.2018 and directed the opposite party to refund Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of debit till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the order.

04.    Aggrieved by this order, opposite party has filed this Appeal.

05.    Perused the impugned order and the grounds urged in the Appeal.   It is observed that, the complainant filed the consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant is banking with the opposite party and who also have multiple current and employee’s salary accounts with the opposite party.  The complainant has a current account No.8911265761 with the opposite party opened on 31.12.2012.  There were have been two electronic fraudulent transactions on 13.10.2016 and 14.10.2016 in the current account resulting to loss of Rs.10,00,000/-.  The complainant did discover the possibility of the fraudulent transaction on 12.10.2016 and reported the same to the opposite party both orally and by email.  On 10.10.2016 the password, mobile number and email id registered with the complainant’s internet banking of the current account was changed by an unidentified and unauthorized person.  As 10.10.2016 and 11.10.2016 was holiday on 12.10.2016 an alert message was noted by the complainant.  On 13.10.2016 the unauthorized person having changed the password, mobile number and email id of the internet banking account transferred Rs.5,00,000/- at 08.42 hours to an unknown account and on 14.10.2016 at 00.40 hours again Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred to an unknown account.  On 14.10.2016 two debits of Rs.5,00,000/- each was noticed by the complainant and the same was reported to the opposite party.  On 16.10.2016 an FIR was registered with Cyber Police.  On 03.11.2016 the opposite party responded that, the reason for fraudulent transaction was the leak of the internet banking details including the user name and password along with the security question and answers.  The opposite party had not taken any action to the initial complaint dated: 12.10.2016 and so also not answered to the complaint dated: 14.10.2016.  In the version filed before the District Commission the opposite party has contended that, the current account referred by the complainant is held in the name of M/s. Precision Infra and the complainant is not the account holder as claimed.  The two fraudulent transactions took place on 13.10.2016 and 14.10.2016 resulting to loss of Rs.10,00,000/- in the current account of the complainant was admitted.  The matter will be clear only after a detailed enquiry by the jurisdictional police who are investigating and the question of responding to any queries by the opposite party when investigation was under progress does not arise.  The person to whom the amounts have been credited and his particulars have also been provided by Axis Bank.  After hearing both sides the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had passed the order dated: 26.09.2018.

06.    Further in the appeal the appellant/opposite party had contended that, the District Forum has exceeded its scope and it is a clear case of wrongful exercise of power-jurisdiction under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The non-filing of affidavit evidence by the Appellant did not come in the way of the District Forum deciding on the issue of locus standi of the complainant.  The District Forum has failed to note that, the account holder firm had been made aware of the account to which the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- had been transferred i.e., one Sri. Ram Kumar having account with Axis Bank.  However the complainant who had no authority neither made any enquiries with the said Bank nor arrayed the said Account Holder as a party to the complaint.  Therefore when the beneficiary had already been identified the District Forum proceeding to decide the complaint based on mere correspondence sent by some third party is an illegality and the order lacks any reasoning.  The District Forum has committed a grave error in holding that, amount was fraudulently transferred from the account of the respondent without when the fact remains that the account belonged to the firm M/s. Precision Infra.  The complainant in his individual capacity as a partner was not entitled under law to maintain a complaint on behalf of a firm as per Order XXX Rule 1 of CPC.  The question as to how did the District Forum come to a conclusion as to any fraud played when the fact remained that the password and mobile number and e-mail ID of the account holder firm was known to various staff of the account holder firm.  So contending, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 

07.    The learned counsel appearing for respondent had orally opposed while submitting his arguments and pray for dismissal of the appeal. 

08.    In view of the above submissions made by both the counsels to this appeal we find some element in the contention raised by the counsel for appellants with regard to the fraudulent transfer done by an unknown person i.e., one Sri. Ram Kumar who is the account holder of Axis Bank and without considering the same the District Commission had falsely passed its order.  Furthermore the complainant being a firm could not file consumer complaint in his individual capacity without furnishing necessary GPA for filing consumer complaint.  Hence we are of the considered view that, the District Commission has failed to look in to the matter while passing its order as discussed above and accordingly the Appeal is allowed.  Consequently impugned order passed by the Bangalore Urban III Additional District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC No.242/2017 dated: 26.09.2018 is hereby set aside and remanded back to the District Commission with a direction to dispose-off the complaint afresh as per observation made above within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

09.    The amount kept in deposit by the appellant shall be transferred to the District Commission for needful.

10.    Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.

LADY MEMBER         JUDICIAL MEMBER       PRESIDENT

KNMP*