O R D E R

Sri. P.Satheesh Chandran Nair(President)

                    The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

                   2. Brief fact of this complaint is as follows:  The Complainant holds NRE Account No. 2057015500005416 with the opposite party Bank.  The complainant came to know on 05/12/2014 that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was paid from his account on 04/12/2014.  It is stated that this said transaction effected by an alleged email account from the complainants mail ID ‘sanilkumar th opposite party and doing business so near to the branch building.  The said transactions were inform to his elder brother on 05/12/14 at the time of his visit to the same branch.  It is also informed that the further request of transfer on balance amount Rs.1,00,000/- is also in progress.  The Complainant enquired this matter and found that the first transfer dated 04/12/15 was a forged one and opposite party 10 failed to understood it.  It is further stated that the complainant has never been given any request for the transfer of money as stated above and also never registered his email ID or Mobile Phone number details with the bank.  The Complainant informed this matter to the 10^th opposite party several time but no positive action has been taken by the bank to redress his grievances.                    Therefore, the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice dated 10/02/2015 to the opposite parties, with a demand to repay the debited amount.  It is further contented that 10^th opposite party filed a complaint before the Keezhvaipur Police and the said complaint was registered as FIR 1554/2014 under section 66A(c), 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act – 2000 and Section 403, 419, 420, 467, 468 of IPC.  It is noted that the said case is still under investigation.  It is also informed that the help of cyber police is essential to go ahead with this crime matter.  It is further stated that the 10^th opposite party received an alleged email request to transfer the fund to Account Number 00517017-2010, BDO Bank Branch 194 J Rizai, Corner, M Belen Street, Silang Cavite, Philippines in favour of Lona Gurtiza Lopes, when the 10^th opposite party requested proof for the purpose of transfer as it is found that the beneficiary has an Indian Account with ICICI, Goregaon, Mumbai (Account Number 693405050599) and the 10^th opposite party acted as stated above and transferred fund to an entirely different stranger account BM ENGINEERING.  According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties are comes under unfair trade practice defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  According to the complainant, opposite parties are generally and severally liable to the complainant.  Hence the Complainant filed this petition before this Forum for directing to the opposite parties to debit Rs. 5,00,000/- to his account being the amount transferred from his account on 04/12/14 together with 18% interest and for compensation, cost etc.

                    3. This Forum entertained this complaint and issue notice to all the opposite parties for appearance.  They entered appearance and opposite party 10 the Bank Manager concerned filed version for her and on behalf of other opposite parties also.

                    4. The version of the opposite parties are as follows.  According to the opposite parties, opposite parties 1 to 9 are not necessary parties in this case and the case is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties.

                    5. The contentions of version in paragraph 1 to 12 are related to the transfer through email and the relationship of bank with this complainant customer.  The parawise objection of the complaint are as follows:   According to the opposite parties 2 to 9 they are not personally liable or responsible  for any of the act of first opposite party or 10^th opposite party.  It is contended that 05/12/14 the 10^th opposite party had informed the complainant with regard to the transfer of funds.  It is again contended that several transaction have been effected from the complainant’s account based on his email request even without any complaint.  It is further contended that the present issue raised due to lack of caution, prudence and carefulness on the part of the complainant, in not ensuring security and protection of his email account.

                    6. According to the opposite parties, they have given reply to legal notice dated 12/03/15 and the opposite parties maintained all basic courtesy and decency. The opposite party bank filed a complaint before the Keezhvaipur Police with regard to this matter and the police register a case and the case is under investigation.  Apart from that the investigation by the Cyber Police is also in progress and it is their duty to prove the matter through various channels including the Central Ministry of Home Affairs. The opposite parties again contented that, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the complainant.  It is again stated that the safety of the email account shall be the responsibility of the complainant himself.  According to the opposite parties they have not committed any deficiency  in service or unfair trade practice against the Complainant and also stated that so many email transactions has been effected through email direction of the complainant, even prayer to this transactions.  Therefore the opposite parties prayed to dismiss this complaint with cost.

7.  We peruse the petition version and records before us and framed the following issues.

1. Whether the Complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in services or  unfair trade practice as alleged.         
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

8.   The evidence of this case consists of the evidence adduced                by PW1 and the documents marked as Ext. A1 to A4.   On the other side 10^th opposite party examined as DW1 and marked Ext. B1 to B11. Ext A1 is the legal notice dated 16/02/15 sent by the complainant to opposite parties.  Ext. A2 is the reply notice dated 12.03.2015 sent by the opposite party to the Complainant.  Ext. A3 is the copy of FIR. No.1554/14 dated 10.1.2014.  Ext. A4 is the copy of the F.I statement.  On the other hand, Ext. B1to B11 marked.  Ext. B1 is the e-mail letter dated 13.12.2014, 20.08.2013, 19.08.2013.  Ext.B2 is the e-mail letter dated 25.08.2014.  Ext.B3 series is the e-mail letter dated 14.07.2014.  Ext. B4 series is the e-mail letter dated 25.09.2014.  Ext. B5 is the copy of specimen signature card.  Ext. B6 is the copy of e-mail conversation between the complainant and bank.  Ext.B7 is the copy of transfer of account.  Ext. B8 is the copy of e-mail letter dated 08.12.2014.  Ext.B9 is the e-mail letter dated 08.12.2014.  Ext.B10 is the e-mail letter dated 14.07.2014.  Ext.B11 is the letter dated 30.11.2015 sent by the Inspector of Police, Mallappally to the Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Mukkoor.

9. When we peruse the Proof Affidavit filed by the complainant in this case as PW1 the prove affidavit is more or less as per the tune of this complaint.  PW1 deposed in chief that he is the holder of NRE account No. 2057015500005416 with the 10^th opposite party and he is maintaining the account from 03/10/1989.  It is deposed that on 05/12/14 his elder brother informed him about the transfer of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the above said NRE account.  It is also deposed that the transactions of Rs. 5,00,000/- made through an email request from the complainants email ID ‘sanilkumar th opposite party for the transfer of the above said amount.  Even though, PW1 approached 10^th opposite party by phone or by email the opposite party 10 had not been considered his grievances hence he approached this Forum.  According to his testimony the Keezhvaipur Police registered an FIR as 1554/14 with regard to this incident, on the basis of the compliant of the 10^th opposite party, and the said crime is under investigation by the Circle Inspector of police Mallapally.  It is also deposed that PW1 never registered his email or phone number with the opposite party bank and registered his phone number only after the filing of the petition.  As discussed above the 10^th opposite party examined as DW, she who filed a proof affidavit for her and for and on behalf of opposite party 1 to 9.  DW1 deposed in her proof affidavit that opposite party 2 to 9are Managing Director and CEO and Executive Directors and Directors of Vijaya Bank who are not the necessary parties in these proceedings.   It is also deposed that opposite party 2 to 9 are to be treated as representatives of the bank and litigation against them has to be treated as litigation against the bank.  It is further deposed, on 02/12/14 the bank received an e-mail from the official e-mail address of the complainant and in pursuance of the said e-mail direction the bank transfer an amount of          Rs. 5,00,000/-from the complainant NRE account No. 205701550005416 BDO Bank Pilippines in favour of Lorna Gurtiza Lopes ,Rizai corner M Belen Street Silang Cavite, Pilippines.  It is again deposed that the said e-mail also contained the duly signed letter of the complainant with the same request for transfer of the above said amount to the account of ICICI bank in favour of B.M. Engineering.  According to DW1, it is pertinent to see that the bank has done so many transactions earlier in the account based on his e-mail requests without any complaint of PW1.  DW1 again deposed that some unknown person had hacked into complainant’s e-mail account and had cheated the complainant as well as the bank and misappropriated Rs. 5,00,000/- from the bank.  On believing the information Manager of the Bank(OP10) filed a complaint before the Keezhvaipur Police Station and the police registered an FIR No. 1554 under the relevant  sections of IPC and Information Technology Act, 2000.   It is also deposed that the said criminal case is under investigation.  According to DW1 it is the primary duty and responsibility of the complainant to ensure the safety of his e-mail account when the said email account is using for banking transactions.  It  is also deposed that the transfer amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been withdrawn from Noida & Goregaon Branches of ICICI Bank due to their negligence or reckless attitude.  It is again pleaded that the said ICICI Bank is necessary party to the proceedings of the case.  However it is pleaded that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their side as alleged by the complainant in this case.  PW1, PW2 and DW1 were cross examined by the counsel concerned for the complainant as well as opposite parties.  After the closure of evidence, we have given opportunity to both side for hearing.  The complainant’s counsel filed argument note but the opposite parties did not turn up for hearing.

            11.  Point No.1:-  The main contention of the opposite parties in this case is that the case is not maintainable before this Forum or this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case.  In order to substantiate their contention the opposite party argued that the ICICI Bank is a necessary party for this proceedings.  According to them, the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- withdrawn from Mumbai Branch to ICICI Bank on 04/12/14.  The ICICI bank is not at all a party for this proceedings hence the opposite party argued that this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  When we peruse the evidence of this case it is clear that the petitioner’s/customer’s relationship is only with 1^st opposite party bank.  They are Vijaya Bank and its Manager and Director of Board Members.  The complainant deposited his cash at 10th opposite party bank.  It is the duty of the bank concerned to give necessary protection or safety to the deposit and give necessary services to a depositor.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant and opposite parties it is seen that the opposite parties bank taken steps to transfer the amount in question Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of a LORNAGURTIZALOPES account in Pilippines and after the result of enquiry the Bank finally transferred the amount to BM Engineering and the said amount is withdrawn from the Branch of ICICI Bank in Mumbai.  On the basis of the fact stated above there is no reason for impleding ICICI bank as a necessary party for this proceedings.  The opposite parties contention with regard to mis-joinder of parties or non-joinder of necessary parties are not sustainable on the basis of the above findings.  Hence point No.1 is found accordingly.

             12. Point Nos. 2 & 3.  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point No.2 and 3 together.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainant as stated earlier through PW1 and PW2 Ext A1 to A4 were marked.  Ext A1 dated 16/02/15 is a legal notice issued by the complainant against the opposite parties.  When we peruse that notice it is clear that the contents of this notice and the contents of the complaint are more or less same.  Ext A2 dated 12/03/15 is a reply notice of the opposite party to the complainant.  In that notice also, the opposite party taken the same stand and contented that there is no deficiency in service or any kind of negligence on their part.  It is come out in evidence that 10^th opposite party the Manager of opposite party bank lodged an F.I. Statement before the Keezhvaipur Police and on the basis of that statement Keezhvaipur police registered FIR as 1554/14 u/s. 403, 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC and section 66(C), 66(C), 66(D) of Information Technology Act 2000, it is also evident to see that the case is, under investigation and no charge sheet is filed so far.  PW1 deposed that he was told by the Keezhvaipur police that investigation can be completed only with the help of cyber cell and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  It is also evident to see that the direction for the transfer of money has comes from a Foreign Nation.  In the light of Ext A3 & A4 it is crystal clear to see that even the bank authorities admitted the forgery or cheating with regard to this transaction.  It is true that the case is under investigation and the result has yet to come.  However, we have to consider the grievances of the complainant and the loss sustained to the complainant as a result of this forged transfer.  When the PW1 was cross-examined he answered that, “Rm³ Fsâ e-mail ID H¶n\pw D]-tbm-Kn-¡m-dn-Ã. Rm³ Cu kw`-¯n\p tij-amWv Fsâ e-mail Id change sN¿p-¶-Xv. Again he answered, “e-mail hgn OP Bank ambn transaction \S-¯n-bn-«pt­m? (Q) CÃ.(A) communication \S-¯n-bn-«p-­v. In another question he answered, “\n§Ä Ønc-ambn ]Ww _m¦v A¡u-­n h¶-Xn-\p-tijw Cu XpI FD bnte¡v amäm-\mbn \nÀtZiw sImSp-¡m-dntÃ? (Q) D­v''(A).     On the basis of the above answers of PW1, it reveals that the complainant often given e-mail direction to opposite parties bank for his banking transactions.  If so, the next question to be considered is whether the complainant PW1 has given any specific direction to the bank authorities to transfer Rs. 5,00,000/- through e-mail.  The opposite parties learned counsel asked a specific question to DW1 with regard to this aspect. “ta ]dª e-mailþIÄ t]mse e-mail XobXn 02/12/2014, 03/12/2014, 04/12/2014, 05/12/2014 Znh-k-§-fn Xm§-fpsS e-mail Id bn  \n¶pw Xm¦-fpsS Ht¸m-Sp-Iq-Snb document attach sNbvX mail h¶-Xm-bmWv ImWn-¡p-¶-Xv. icn-bmtWm? (A) Fsâ  mail Id BWv ImWn-¡p-¶-¯v.  CXv Ftâ-X-Ô.  So it is evident to see that some e-mail directions received as stated above and on the basis of that e-mail direction the opposite parties bank transferred the money.  The complainant as PW1 in this case categorically denied the specific suggestion of opposite parties with regard to e-mail direction as stated above.  The next question to be considered is whether the above discussed e-mail directions is forged or not.  It is the definite case of the complainant to the effect that he did not give any e-mail direction for money transfer during 02/12/14 to 05/12/14.  The Opposite parties not succeed to prove that the e-mail direction from 02/12/14 to 05/12/14 were genuine.  It is also to be noted that when the transaction is effected the  bank, informed the details to the complainant, on knowing it the complainant intimate the bank with regard to forged transfer and in the light of this intimation the opposite parties bank forthwith informed the ICICI bank Bombay with regard to the forged transfer.  As a result of this information the ICICI Bank officials freezed the said account and an amount of Rs. 70,000/- is remaining in that account.  These act of the complainant and opposite parties shows that a forged transfer is effected and as soon as it is understood by the bank concerned, they intimated this fact to the ICICI bank.

13. The DW1 in this case is the Branch Manager of the Vijaya Bank, Mukkur Branch.  In the light of the deposition of DW1 it reveals that the complainant often contacted the opposite party bank through e-mail and the basis of the e-mail directions the opposite party bank effected necessary money transactions.  Ext B1 to B5 are marked through DW1.  As per this Ext B1 to B5, the complainant sent e-mail on 19/08/2013, 20/08/2013 and 19/08/2013.  As per Ext B1, PW1 again sent e-mail on 28/05/14. As per Ext. B2 on 14/07/2014, PW1 sent another 2 e-mails which are marked as Ext. B3 series & B4 Series.  The specimen signature of the complainant is also produced and marked through DW1 as Ext B5.  Ext B5 to Ext B11 are also marked through DW1.  The Ext B6 & B7 are the questioned e-mail direction between the complainant and 10^th opposite party from 02/12/14 to 05/12/14 and the transfer of Rs. 25,000/- dated 20/12/13 respectively.

                  14. On 06/08/14 10^th opposite party sent an e-mail message to ICICI bank Mumbai and requested to provide details of name and address of the party,  KYC details like scanned copy of the photograph of the party from the account opening form, mode of withdrawal of that money and statement showing the transaction of the said amount.  The 10^th opposite party demanded these details for filing an FIR before the police station concerned with regard to the incident.

                  15. On the same date 10^th opposite party issued another letter to ICICI bank stating that the complainant in this case filed a letter stating that he has not informed 10^th opposite party for the transaction of the said money and e-mail was hacked by somebody an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been transferred on the basis of that bogus request.  It is true that all these communication has been send by the 10^th opposite party to ICICI bank Mumbai within three days of date of transfer of amount in question.  Ext. B10 is a letter issued by 10^th opposite party in favour of the Branch Manager ICICI bank, Mumbai, it reads, “We send an RTGS for Rs. 5,00,000/- on 04/12/14 favouring your account no. 643405050599 of M/s BM Engineering which was send by a hacked mail of one of our NRI Customer Mr. Sanilkumar K S.  We send mails and send a letter from out Regional Office for the KYC details of your customer.  But you have not replied about the address/contact numbers of your customer or you have not recovered and credited the above amount from them”. 

                  “Please note that we have lodged a complaint in the appropriate forum in this regard.  Please give a reply from you to produce for the investigation purpose”.  Ext.B11 is a letter issued by Circle Inspector of Police Mallappally in favour of 10^th opposite party.  The  content of this letter is “the investigation on the case is still going on and the replace of requests from Union Ministry of Home Affairs, district Cyber Cell etc is to be obtained”.

 16. On the basis of the evidence as per Ext.B8 to B11, it is clear that 10^th opposite party bank sincerely and with bonafide reacted in this matter and it is also seen that as soon as 10^th opposite party received the information of e-mail hacking of the complainant she proceeded against this e-mail hacking.  As per Ext.B10, it is reveals that even though 10^th opposite party demanded to furnish the details of the account holder who received the amount in question Rs. 5,00,000/- from ICICI bank Mumbai, the said bank officials are purposefully did not comply the request of 10^th opposite party and avoid further steps with regard to this issue.  Ext. B11 shows that the investigation of the crime is still going on and it also reveals that only by the help of Union Ministry of Home Affairs and District Cyber Cell etc the police can proceed with the investigation.  It is replied in Ext.B11 “On the investigations held in Mumbai, the pan card No. AOD/PM/5795B, which was used as ID proof to create the BM Engineering A/C No. 00630600081, through which the amount was withdrawn fraudulently and to trace the address of the same we have given request to Income Tax officer Thiruvalla, and the reply suggest the address as BrijMohan Lal Chand Maurya, Ganesh Nagar, c/o Munnan Ki Rani Shegaon Rod, Boiser, Palgher, Thane.  Through certain sources a probe was conducted and it has come to knowledge that Brijmohan is now not residing in the same address and the acquaintances in Mumbai is fetching some information on the guy and the investigation team will be sent to there upon any fruitful information”.

                  17. On the basis of Ext. B11 it is stated that one BrijMohan Lal Chand Maurya the resident of Thana near Mumbai is the culprit behind this incident.  However, it is clear that the complainant has already lost Rs. 5,00,000/- from his account from opposite party’s bank.  It is also evident to see that the complainant has not given any intimation to transfer this amount in favour of BM Engineering A/C No. 00630600081 and also to see that somebody has hacked the e-mail of the complainant and give a forged information to opposite party bank to transfer the money.  At this stage we have to consider that whether 10^th opposite party has taken any precaution before transferring the amount in favour of the BM Engineering A/C No. 00630600081 as stated above.  When we peruse Ext. B6 documents it is a clear evidence to show that 10^th opposite party bank has taken necessary precaution before effecting transfer of the amount in question. Ext. B6 (Page No.1) we can see a request of transfer of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant cousins account in Manila Philippines and on the same day the bank demanded certain clarification from the informer of that transfer.  In the 2^nd page of Ext. B6 again an intimation for the transfer of said amount Rs. 5,00,000/- can be seen.  The signature and name in writing can be also seen there.  On 3^rd December 2014 again a correspondence between the bank and the complainant can be seen in Ext. B6(Page 3).  In Ext.B6(Page 4) it reads ‘with the beneficiary just confirm to me that he has an account in India, so I have decided to transfer the money to is Indian account. i think that will be better than sending the money cut to is account in Philippine.  Await your response as soon as possible’.  In reply to this correspondence for the said Sanil Kumar the bogus person acting for the complainant responded like this “Thanks for your prompt response, Kindly find below the bank account details as requested”.

Account Name: B.M. ENGINEERING

Bank: ICICI Bank

Account Number: 643405050599

IFSC: ICIC0006434.

                    18. In the light of this Ext. B6(Page 4) it is to see that the person behind this cheating or forgery give an account number to 10^th opposite party bank and on the basis of this information and enquiry the bank proceeded for the transfer of money.  Ext. B6(Page 5) shows that the bank made the entry in their system and due  to some net work problem the transaction was denied.

              19. On 4^th December 2014, again an e-mail from the name of Sanil Kumar sent to 10^th opposite party bank, that the said Sanil Kumar is sending scanned letters as requested.  As per Ext. B6(Page 7) it can be seen that the transfer request along with the scanned letters having the name Sanal Kumar and a  signature also has been seen to 10^th opposite party bank, these details had been send to 10^th opposite party at 04/12/2014 at 12.40A.M.  As per the Ext.B6(Page 8), it is evident to see that 10^th opposite party bank transferred Rs.4,00,000/- against the request and subsequently again Rs.1,00,000/- effected after a confirmation from the bogus informer.  On 5^th December 2014 again the said bogus informer sent an e-mail to 10^th opposite party with regard to this transaction.  In reply to that e-mail the Bank Manager/responded, ‘please call me sir I want to talk you at on the same day’.  All these correspondence which are elaborately discussed above, it is pertinent to see that the bank officials taken utmost care and diligent for the transfer of this amount.  But at the same time, it can be also inferred that the malafide attempt of the bogus persons could not be traced out by the bank authorities.  The culprit in this case is still behind the curtain and that persons are not traced out so far.  It is to be noted that now a days by hacking e-mail id etc. so many antisocial elements cheating the bank and thereby the customers lost their deposit.  Anyway the depositors are not responsible for these kinds of cheating.  Here also, the complainant like other depositors deposit his money in the bank as a safe deposit and for getting interest for that money.  Another aspects to be considered in this case is that the 10^th opposite party the Bank Manager taken charge in that bank only on 04/12/2014.  She deposed in cross, “2014 December 4^th \v Xs¶-bmWv Cu case se fund transfer \S-¶-Xv.  Sabordinate  ]d-ª-X-\p-k-cn¨v \n§Ä H¸n«v \ÂIp-I-b-tÃ-bp-­m-b-Xv?(Q)Aà (A) Signature verify  sNbvXn-cp-¶p.   Mail ]cn-tim-[n-¨n-cp-¶p.  cmhnse 10 aWn¡mWv Rm³ Cu bank  join sNbvX-Xv.   Ext.B6 Rm³ hmbn¨p t\m¡n-bn-cp-¶p. B1 to B5 Rm³ hmbn¨n-cp-¶p''.   She answered for an another question, “B2, B3, B4 F¶o {]am-W§fn ]d-bp¶ answer Dw B6 se answer Dw X½n {]I-S-amb hym-X-ymkw D­tÃm? (Q) CÃ. (A). Fsâ samgn  police  \ÂIn-bXn Assistant Manager  Nn{X-Kp-]vX³ sIm­p-h-¶-Xn Rm³ H¸n«p F¶p ]d-ªn-cp-¶p. She answered, “02/12/14 h¶ lÀPn-¡m-csâ e-mail Rm³ hmbn-¨n-cp-¶p.  IqSp-X Imc-y§Ä sabordinate BWv sNbvX-Xv''.  When we examine the above answers of DW1, it can be seen that she has taken charge as the Manager of 10^th opposite party bank only on 04/12/14 and after one hours of assuming charge the transfer in question was effected, and also it is pertinent to see that the request for transfer came to 10^th opposite party bank on 2^nd December 2014 onwards. From that date, to the date of effecting the transfer the bank officials acted somewhat promptly.  It is true that the bank has taken some disciplinary action against the 10^th opposite party and the Assistant Manager Chitragupthan with regard to this incident.  When we are appreciating the evidence of this case we find that the complainant has lost Rs. 5,00,000/- from his deposit. It is also find that the bank authorities transferred the amount to another account on the basis of a bogus intimation through an e-mail as we discussed earlier. We also find that the bank authorities have taken reasonable care for effecting this transaction.  Even though, this is the actual position of this case the innocent complainant is a looser and a clear aggrieved in this case.  The bank is responsible for the loss sustained to this complainant because he deposited his earnest money in opposite parties bank as a safe deposit and for getting interest as discussed above.  In the light of the evidence discussed above we find that the bank is liable to the complainant and complaint can be allowable.  Hence point No. 2 & 3 found in favour of the complainant.

                   20.  In the result, we pass the following orders.

1. 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to the complainant together with 10% interest per annum from the date of transfer of the money, i.e. 04/12/2014.

2. 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of                Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% per annum from the date of order onwards.

3. Cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) also allowed to the complainant as cost of this case against 1^st opposite party with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

     Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of August, 2016. 

                                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                               P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                              (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)             :   (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)                 :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Sanil Kumar. K.S

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1  :  Legal notice dated 16/02/15 sent by the complainant to opposite parties. 

A2 :  Reply notice dated 12.03.2015 sent by the opposite party to the  

        Complainant. 

A3 :  Copy of FIR. No.1554/14 dated 10.1.2014. 

A4 :  Copy of the F.I statement.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Geetha Devi. C

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  E-mail letter dated 13.12.2014, 20.08.2013, 19.08.2013. 

B2 :  E-mail letter dated 25.08.2014. 

B3 series :  E-mail letter dated 14.07.2014. 

B4 series :  E-mail letter dated 25.09.2014. 

B5 :  Copy of specimen signature card. 

B6 :  Copy of e-mail conversation between the complainant and bank. 

B7 :  Copy of transfer of account. 

B8 :  Copy of e-mail letter dated 08.12.2014. 

B9 :  E-mail letter dated 08.12.2014. 

B10 :  E-mail letter dated 14.07.2014. 

B11 :  Letter dated 30.11.2015 sent by the Inspector of Police, Mallappally

          to the Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Mukkoor.

                                                                             (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Sanil Kumar K.S, Sankarasseril, Palakkathakidi P.O,

          Kunnamthanam, Thiruvalla – 689 581.

2.  M/s. Vijaya Bank,

     Chairman and Managing Director and CEO,

     41/2 Trinity Circle, M.G Road, Bangalore – 560001.

3. Kishore Kumar Sansi, Managing Director and CEO,

     41/2 – Trinity Circle, M.G Road, Bangalore – 560001.

4. K. Ramdas, Executive Director,  M/s Vijaya Bank 41/2

     Trinity Circle,  M.G Road, Bangalore – 560 001.

5. B.S. Rama Rao, Executive Director, M/s Vijaya Bank 41/2 Trinity Circle, M.G Road, Bangalore – 560001

(6) Sanjay Kumar, Director, M/s Vijaya Bank 41/2 Trinity Circle,  

     M.G Road, Bangalore – 560001

(7) Suma Varma, Director, M/s Vijaya Bank 41/2 Trinity Circle,     

     M.G Road, Bangalore – 560001

(8) Vaidyanathan, Director, M/s. Vijaya Bank 41/2 Trinity Circle,   

     M.G Road, Bangalore – 560001.

(9) Bharathi Rao, Director, M/s. Vijaya Bank 41/2 Trinity Circle,         

     M.G Road, Bangalore – 560001.

(10) Y. Muralikrishna, Director, M/s Vijaya Bank 41/2 Trinity Circle,   

      M.G Road, Bangalore – 560001.

     (11) The Manager, Mukkoor Branch, M/s Vijaya Bank,

            Palakkathakidi P.O, Kunnamthanam – 689 581.

     (12) The Stock File.