Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/358/2018

S Sankaralingam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Canara Bank & Another - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

05 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 07.08.2018

Date of Reservation      : 08.08.2022

Date of Order               : 05.09.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 358/2018

MONDAY, THE 5^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

S. Sankaralingam,

F-2, Subiksha, Plot No:53,

V.G.P Dr. Vimala Nagar,

3^rd Street, Medavakkam,

Chennai-600100.                                                              ... Complainant           

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

   Canara Bank,

   No.375, Mount Road,

   Anna Salai,

   Chennai-600015.

   Tamil Nadu.

 

2.The Managing Director,

   Snapdeal India Private Limited,

   Also known as

   Jasper Infotech Private Limited,

   246, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3,

   New Delhi-110020.                                                   ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. S.Sankaralingam

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party   : Exparte

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party  : Dismissed

 

        On perusal of records of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay the entire sum of Rs.55,900/- towards the loss of money through online transaction and to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- towards cost of this compliant.      

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 

The Complainant Lodging the complaint against Canara Bank on deficiency and Non-adherence of issued RBI notification on Security and risk mitigation measure for electronic transactions dated 28 February 2013 of Fraud Prevention Measure technology which has been instructed by RBI to implement across all banks before 30 June 2013. As per the above mentioned RBI notification on Security and risk mitigation measure for electronic transactions, it clearly states that banks should introduce certain minimum checks and balances to minimise the impact of such attacks & to arrest or minimise the damage. The Complainant and his wife's canara bank saving accounts are there for more than twenty five years (0933101021554 &0933101021553) & never used the Debit cards for an online shopping purchase and neither enrolled for net banking facility. The term ADS refers to Activation During Shopping. As per the fraudulent debit happened with the above mentioned two savings accounts were through online mode. This incident happened on 01.09.2016 at around 1.40 P.M. in the afternoon, whereas received message alert intimation from the bank at around 4.45PM stating around Rs 89,800/- withdrawn from his savings account and Rs 5,000/- from his wife's savings account as well. Then, immediately he raised a request to block the two debit cards by contacting the Canara Bank Saidapet branch over phone. On the same day earlier at around 1.40 pm in the afternoon, he received a call by person named Rajesh Kumar stating that he is from Canara Bank, Head office Bangalore. Informed his bank account detail correctly and stated that his Aadhaar linking of Bank account has not been made so far, due to which the credits have been stopped to his account. As he also didn't receive the August 2016 month pension credit till that time to his savings account, he believed his statement and shared his Aadhaar number to link his bank account. He informed that Debit Card number information is also required, hence he informed the Debit card number with CVV. He aware that without four digit PIN it is not possible to withdraw cash and didn't disclose the same. The initial ADS enrolment attempt tried for Debit card failed as per the Bank's IP Audit time stamp report. This itself reveals that he didn't disclose his ATM PIN. There is no enrollment message alert sent to his registered mobile number. He would like to highlight that Bank on their response to their complaint, mentioned that Verified by Visa process initiated for this fraudulent transaction and executed successfully. Mean-while, contacted Snapdeal the 2^nd Opposite Party on their helpline over phone at 5.46 PM and informed fraud transaction purchase encountered at their web portal. Snapdeal, informed without Police record, it will not be possible from their end to block the order and provided a ticket reference number of 28777473 dated 01 September 2016 on receipt of a mail sent to grievanceofficer@snapdeal.com  from sankaralingam.gopi@gmail.com. Similarly contacted SBI E-Buddy Wallet through phone and sent mail to contactcentre@sbi.co.in and alertbuddy @sbi.co.in along with the Scanned Police CSR Copy. He also appeared before Chennai Cyber Crime Police on 03 September 2016 and gave a written complaint. Subsequently, Cyber Crime Police also initiated an e-mail from their end acpyccbean.tnpol @nic.in to nic.in to help@snapdeal.com and grievanceofficer@snapdeal.com citing the ticket reference number of 28777473 dated 01^st  September 2016.

 

Again appeared for second level enquiry with Chennai Cyber Crime Police on 07 September 2016, where a case number: 2840 registered and second reminder mail sent from their end to help@snapdeal.com and grievanceofficer@snapdeal.com. Though many e-mails being initiated by my kins from the incident day of 01.09.2016, citing 28777473 snapdeal's ticket reference number, no response given by Snapdeal. In continuation of his complaint representation, again appeared before Chennai Cyber Crime Police Investigation Officer Mr. K. Rajarathinam- Sub Inspector Bank Fraudulent Investigation Wing, Team- 11 on 11 September 2016 and requested him to send third level e-mail reminder from acpyccbchn.tnpol@nic.in to snapdeal.com.  On 13.09.2016. Snapdeal replied from the e-mail id legal@snapdeal.com to acpycebchn.inpol@nic.in Chennai Cyber Crime Police stating the fraudulent order of Rs 89,800/- consist of two products. Out of which one order has been delivered & the other has been blocked. His  kins followed up with the Canara Bank Digital Banking Service team. With the immense effort put by my kins, Canara Bank Digital banking service personnel initiated an e-mail grievanceofficer@snapdeal.com and  to help@snapdeal.com. On 16.09.2016, Snapdeal refunded Rs.38,900/- to his savings account but till date there has been no reply made by Snapdeal against the other amount of Rs.50,900/- despite sharing the legal notice. His kin followed up with Snapdeal and received the fraudulent order invoice copy which is of Samsung S7 Galaxy High End Mobile Phone with IMEI 357327071757419. Snapdeal has not informed on the delivered date and time of this fraudulent order. Invoice copy is attached for reference.  Fraudulent order invoice copy is mentioned with the delivery address as Pottery Moore, West Bengal-15. My kins also registered an online complaint with West Bengal police vide 28626 on my behalf and also TamilNadu police BNS1702270, Once a reply received from Mr. Ghosh (Sub Inspector of Cyber Crime Police West Bengal) stating they are unable to find a person named Vinod Kumar Gupta on the mentioned invoice address shared by Snapdeal. In continuation of that, sent many mails to West Bengal and TamilNadu Cyber Crime Police, but no reply from both of the Cyber Crime Departments. He is an individual, a physically challenged person aged 69 conveyed truth regarding this incident. But RBI & Bank are twisting the issued notification rules framed from their end. RBI is unable to give in writing the issued public notification of Security and risk mitigation measure for electronic transactions dated 28.02.2013 is not mandatory as per the issued RBI guidelines and safeguarding the Banker against my RBI Complaint 201617006002689. He raised the complaint against banker on Chapter-6 Grounds of Complaint - 8 violation Point number (i) Non-adherence by the bank or its subsidiaries to the instructions of Reserve Bank on ATM/Debit or Credit Operations and (u) Any other matter relating to the violation of the directives issued by the Reserve Bank in relation to banking or other services Violation of Secure Card Payment Clause point number on secure card payments.  It clearly states that there is deficiency in Banking Service rendered by Canara Bank and Non-adherence of issued RBI notification of Security and risk mitigation measure for electronic transactions dated 28.02.2013, which made the customer to lose his hard earned money, where there is no reply given by Canara Bank or by RBI and Canara Bank need to return the disputed amount with the penal interest till date and as well as legal charges spent. Though Snapdeal was informed about the fraud transaction on 01 September 2016 within 8 hours, Snapdeal is unable to block the order. Till now, Snapdeal didn't inform on the fraudulent order delivered date and time. It is from Snapdeal's end lacked ethics and need to refund the disputed amount immediately. Hence the complaint.

 

3.     The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 were marked.

The 1^st Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even sufficient  notice served on them and called absent and set exparte. The complaint against 2^nd Opposite Party was dismissed for defaulty.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

        On careful reading of the complaint and on perusal of Exhibits marked in support of the complaint, it is clear that the Complainant had provided the details of his debit card including the CVV number to the person who had contacted the Complainant over phone around 1.40 pm on 01.09.2016, without knowing or verifying the said person was 1^st Opposite Party’s representative or not, which led to a fraudulent debit of Rs.89,800/- from his savings account and a sum of Rs.5,000/- from his wife’s account. From Ex.A-1 statement of Accounts of the Complainant, the fraudlent debit of Rs.89,800/- was found to be made at Snapdeal, Mumbai, i.e., the 2^nd Opposite Party. The contention of the Complainant is that he had contacted the 2^nd Opposite Party, who had informed him that without Police complaint it is not possible for them to block the order and had provided a ticket reference number. From Ex.A-2 the CSR dated 01.09.2016 issued by Pallikaranai Police Station a complaint was lodged on the said fraudulent transaction taken place. Based on the said complaint, the Complainant was asked to appear for enquiry before Central Crime Bench, on 03.09.2016 and 07.09.2016, as found in Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4. On perusal of Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6 the alleged fraudulent transaction of Rs.89,800/- was done for the purchases of Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Mobile Phone for Rs.50,900/- with the 2^nd Opposite Party by one Vinod Kumar Gupta, Calcutta, West Bengal.

        As per Ex.A-8, the Audit Trial report of the 1^st Opposite Party Bank, wherein the Debit Card of the Complainant has been enrolled for ADS (Activation during shopping) on 01.09.2016 at 13.34 p.m and the details of fraudulent purchase taken place has been provided, wherein out of Rs.89,800/- alleged purchase made, a sum of Rs.38,900/- has been refunded to his account, as admitted by the Complainant.

        On discussions made above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a clear case of fraudulent transaction taken place, though the contention of the Complainant is that the 1^st Opposite Party Bank had failed to take measures to prevent fraudulent transactions as per RBI guidelines dated 28.02.2013, in the instant case the Complainant himself had revealed the details of his Debit Card with CVV number, which should not have been provided by the Complainant without verifying the details of the person contacted him over phone for which the 1^st Opposite Party Bank could do anything and the Complainant had failed to prove that the 1^st Opposite Party Bank had not taken such measures, after complaint made to the 2^nd Opposite Party whereupon one of the transaction for Rs.38,900/- could be blocked and refunded. Hence, it is clear that the fraudulent online transaction taken place on the details provided by the Complainant, for which the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are in no way liable or responsible as alleged by the Complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties had not committed any deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos: 2 and 3:-

        As discussed above and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in the complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

          In the result the complaint is Dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 5^th day of September 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	01.09.2016	Statement of accounts from Canara Bank, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
Ex.A2	01.09.2016	Statement of account from Canara Bank, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
Ex.A3	01.09.2016	CSR No.680/2016 of Pallikaranai Police Station
Ex.A4	03.09.2016	C.No.3977/CCB/Visitors/2016 of Commissioner of Police, Chennai – 600 007
Ex.A5	07.09.2016	C.No.2840/DC/CCB-1/PE/2016 of Commissioner of Police, Chennai-600 007.
Ex.A6	01.09.2016	Copy of Invoice
Ex.A7	-	Copy of Identity Card

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT