Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/828

Ramandeep Luthra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Janamjit Singh

29 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          C.C. No.828 of 04.12.2014

                                                              Date of order:29.06.2015

Ramandeep Luthra s/o Sh.Harbans Lal, r/o 2580, Street Jagat Nagar, Rahon Road, Ludhiana.

                                                                             … Complainant

                                                Versus             

 

1.Punjab National Bank, Head Office:- Near MBD Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

2.The Chief Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, Near MBD Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

3.Punjab National Bank, Regional Office at 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

4.The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana.

                                                                             Opposite Parties

          Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                  

Present:-     Sh.J.S.Sidhu, Adv, for complainant.                         

                   Sh.Anil K.Saggar, Adv, for Ops.

 

ORDER

 

SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

1.           Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Sh.Ramandeep Luthra(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainants’) against Punjab National Bank and others (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Ops’) directing them to refund the alleged entries alongwith interest and to pay Rs.60,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and litigation expenses.
2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has availed banking services of OP4 and is having saving account No.3457001500019944 in the branch of Ops. At the time of opening of the account, the OP4 assured the complainant regarding safety and security of the complainant’s money and also assured that this is the safest place to put his money without any fear. Believing such assurances, the complainant agreed to open the saving account in the bank of OP4 and deposited his hard earned money with OP4. On 29.4.2014, when the complainant checked his bank statement, he was astonished to see that there was unauthorized transfer of money from his account to some other account. Details of the same are as follows:-

a)9.3.2014 Debit Card purchase at :Mobikwik Rs.10/-

b) 9.3.2014 Debit Card purchase at:Airtel PYN Rs.5000/-

c) 9.3.2014 Debit Card purchase at:Airtel PYM Rs.4990/-

d) 9.3.2014 Debit Card purchase at: One MobikW Rs.5000/-

e) 9.3.2014 Debit Card purchase at:Mobikw Rs.5000/-

f) 9.3.2014 Debit Card purchase at:WWW Mobikw Rs.3800/-

g)11.3.2014 cheque No.173774 returning charges Rs.100/-

h)11.3.2014 cheque No.173775 returning charges Rs.100/-

Following the alleged transfers, there are some entries regarding the repayment of the alleged withdrawals which are following:-

a)19.3.2014 MREF/280509/5126520216051131 (New Delhi ATM Cell, Back Office) of Rs.10/-

b)19.3.2014 MREF/392809/5126520216051131 (New Delhi ATM Cell, Back Office) of Rs.3800/-

c) 19.3.2014 REVL/643906/5126520216051131 (New Delhi ATM Cell, Back Office) of Rs.5000/-

d) 19.3.2014 REVL/643398/5126520216051131 (New Delhi ATM Cell, Back Office) of Rs.5000/-.

When the complainant visited the bank regarding the alleged entries, then the office has not given any satisfactory reply to the complainant ill now. When the complainant told the other Ops that the transfer of money is Rs.23,800/- + Rs.200/- regarding the returning charges of cheques due to non-availability of the funds whereas the credit entries are only of Rs.13,810/- what about the other remaining amount which was illegally transferred by the alleged entries. On that all the Ops kept mum and there was no satisfactory answer from their side. After taking the matter to the higher officials verbally, the OP4 told that the money which was transferred is non-transferable and they are not liable to refund the same to the complainant and they flatly refused to refund the alleged illegal transfer of money. Such act and conduct of Ops is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.Anil K.Saggar, Advocate and filed their written statement, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form as it is legally defective as there is no pith or substance in the baseless and imaginary accusations of the complainant. The complainant is guilty of his own act and conduct of his admissions and affirmations, hence barred from filing the present complaint. It has clearly been mentioned in the terms and conditions enumerated in the ATM Card Application Form, qua the issuance and operation of the ATM Card so issued to the complainant which bears his signatures as acceptance thereof that the card holder/complainant shall in all circumstances accept full be responsibility for all the transactions processed by use of the car, whether or not processed with card holder’s knowledge or by his/her implied authority, express or implied and that a secret PIN Number will be advised to the card holder on issuance of ATM card, before using the car, the card holder should change his PIN with the PIN of his choice and thereafter, the PIN number be used for all his ATM transaction until changed by him and that at no time and in no circumstances, the card holder shall inform the PIN to any other person. The complainant seems to be a victim of Phishing-an attempt made by some fraudster to acquire his sensitive information such as user names, passwords, and card details (& sometimes, indirectly, money) by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication as communications purporting to be from popular social web sites, auction sites, banks, online payment processors or IT administrators are commonly used to lure unsuspecting public. Phishing is a typically carried out by email spoofing or instant messaging and it often directs users to enter details at a fake websites whose look and feel are almost identical to the legitimate one. Phishing is an example of social engineering techniques used to deceive users and exploits the poor usability of current web security technologies. Many websites have now created secondary tools for applications, like maps for games, but they should be clearly marked as to who wrote them and one should not use the same passwords anywhere on the internet. The complainant has dragged the answering Ops in whimsical, false and frivolous litigation for absolutely no fault on their part and he has in fact trampled upon the precious public money and valuable time of the answering Ops in order to grab money from them under the garb of false and wayward pleadings. The claim of the complainant is illusionary, holds no ground as he is not entitled to any compensation under the garb of the present toothless complaint. No cause of action ever arose to the complainant against the answering Ops to move such like complaint. This Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the alleged dispute involved in the complaint and it is not a consumer dispute as the dispute so raised by the complainant in the complaint is manifestly outside the purview of the said Act and in any event, the Act is in addition to & not in derogation of the provisions of the Act. The proceedings initiated by the complainant under the Act are nonest, null and void an without jurisdiction, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily. Reply on facts, it is submitted that to the very knowledge of the complainant, the answering Ops had informed the complainant that the alleged entries mentioned in para 3 of the complaint from clause a) to f) & further from columns a) to d) have been debited through debit card and as per the information of the complainant, Cyber fraud has been committed with him and withdrawals made in illegal and unauthorized manner by some tenacious, intelligent and crafty fraudster or person known to the complainant, to whom the complainant had knowing or unknowingly shared/revealed the secret information qua his PIN No., Password etc., and thus, fallen prey to the social engineering techniques of the cyber fraudster as a debit card transaction is not possible without a valid Debit Card and transaction password, there are two levels of security in Debit Card Operation; first level login with Debit Card Number and 2^nd is password/CVV No. which facilitates activity other than transaction and as such, only with 2^nd level password the transaction can take place. So under these circumstances, the complainant can’t hold the answering Ops liable in any manner as the security of the bank’s system has not been compromised. In fact, it is case of compromising the credentials of the complainant qua his debit card and password CVV NO.through Phishing as it is a case of Phishing as enumerated above. Credit Card/Debit Card fraud is a wide-ranging term for theft and fraud committed using or involving a payment-card, such as credit card or debit card, as a fraudulent source of funds in a transaction. The purpose may be to obtain goods without paying, or to obtain unauthorized funds from an account. Credit Card fraud is also an adjunct to identity theft. The complaint must surely have shared his user ID. The password issued by the bank is in encrypted from in the system which even the bank can’t access. Once the password is changed, it can’t be decrypted by the bank. The connectivity between the user PC and the bank’s internet web page is through SSL(Secured Socket Layer) & the communications are encrypted. As such, the data does not travel in free textformat. So, evidently it is clear that the access has been done either by the user or by anyone with the correct Debit Card & PIN/ password which the user/complainant might have shared. The complainant can’t hold the answering Ops liable for any damages, whatsoever. No written notice/request was made by the complainant to the answering Ops regarding alleged withdrawals. The complainant had voluntarily signed on front and rear side of the application form for ATM card accepting the terms and conditions stated therein. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations made by the complainants in the complaint against the answering OPs being wrong and incorrect, answering Ops made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Parties adduced their evidence by way of tendering affidavits and documents on record in support of their respective pleadings.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OPs.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has filed the written arguments, in which, it has been submitted that the present complaint was filed against the alleged unauthorized transfer of money from the account of the complainant which the complainant had opened on the assurance of Ops employee. On 29.4.2014, the complainant was astonished to see the unauthorized transfer of money from his account to some other account, the details of which are already described in the complaint. The 7^th and 8^th transactions is against the cheque bounce of the complainant as before this unauthorized transaction there was sufficient money to get the cheque clear but as complainant was not aware he got cheque presented in the bank and there was several entries regarding the repayment of the alleged withdrawal from the PNB Bank which has been detailed in the complaint. The Op bank has intentionally and willfully restrained themselves regarding the reply of the alleged credit entries made by their ATM Cell Delhi Branch which clearly shows that alleged deficiency in services made by the Ops. Further, the learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon judgment titled as M.D.Air Deccan and others vs. Ram Gopal Aggarwal-2014(1)CLT-179(Meghalaya State Commission).

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has filed the written arguments, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the Ops and further, it has been submitted that it was clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions on the rear side of ATM Card Application Form, which relates to issuance & Operation of ATM Card issued to the complainant which also bears his signatures as acceptance thereof that complainant shall be fully responsible for all transactions processed by use of Card, whether or not processed with card holder’s knowledge or by his/her implied authority, express or implied and that a secret PIN Number will be advised to the card holder on issuance of ATM card, before using the car, the card holder should change his PIN with the PIN of his choice and thereafter, the PIN number be used for all his ATM transaction until changed by him and that at no time and in no circumstances, the card holder shall inform the PIN to any other person. This Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the alleged dispute involved in the complaint and it is not a consumer dispute as the dispute so raised by the complainant in the complaint is manifestly outside the purview of the said Act and in any event, the Act is in addition to & not in derogation of the provisions of the Act. The proceedings initiated by the complainant under the Act are nonest, null and void an without jurisdiction, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily. Further, it has been submitted that Credit card fraud is also an adjunct to identity theft. The cheque in question was rightly dishonored by the OP bank as the complainant did not maintain sufficient funds in his said account.

8.                We have perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the documents on record very carefully.

9.                It is evident that the complainant had availed the banking services of the OP4 and having a saving account No. 3457001500019944 in the branch of Ops. The complainant was also availed services of OP4 by way of using Debit Card because the Debit Card purchases mentioned in para no.3 of the complainant have been vehemently denied by the complainant for not using by him at any point of time. Further, there are allegations of dishonouring of cheques by the OP4.

10.              Perusal of the complaint clearly shows that the complainant levelled the allegations against the Ops for illegally transferring of money as well as illegally and wrongfully debits to the account of the complainant and misappropriation of funds of the complainant’s amounts committing criminal breach of trust. For adjudicating all these allegations, it requires an elaborate evidence of both the parties by way of cross-examination of the witnesses which is not possible within the purview of this District Forum because charges of criminal breach of trust and moreover, the complainant himself has used the word accused for the Ops, meaning thereby that he is levelling criminal charges against the Ops especially against OP4.

11.              In view of the above discussion, we hereby dispose off the present complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Criminal/Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no order as to compensation and litigation costs is passed. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

                                  Member                       President  

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:29.06.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.