DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.367/2011
Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sinha
S/o Sh. Shiv Shanker Prasad
R/o 106M, Aram Bagh,
Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 ….Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager
Punjab National Bank,
Parliament Street Branch,
New Delhi ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 12.10.2011 Date of Order : 04.12.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant opened a saving bank account No. 0153000110016709 with the OP bank on 08.08.2009. It is stated that while attempting a transaction on 5th October 2009 the complainant came to know that there was no balance in the account while it was Rs.19,991/- on 1st October 2009. He checked the account details and he came to know about three unknown transactions consisting of two deposits and one withdrawal. The complainant narrated the incident to the Customer Care Officer of the branch and later on it was informed to the complainant by the OP that his account had got into fishing network and had called the complainant to the branch. The Customer Care Officer dictated an application to be given to the Police Station Parliament Street for lodging an FIR. It is stated that on the next day, the complainant wrote an application to the Branch Manager for purging of the accounts as there were some unknown transactions in his account. It is submitted that the application was never replied until the complainant lodged a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman on 3rd January 2010. The Banking Ombudsman took up the matter with the bank and later on 16 September 2010 called the complainant for a meeting to discuss the matter alongwith the representative of the branch. The Ombudsman heard both the parties and ruled orally that in this case the bank had to give the money back as there were lacunas in the system of transaction. The representative of the OP submitted that they were in the initial stage of system and still experimenting on which the Banking Ombudsman commented that they cannot experiment with the customer’s money. However, no written order was passed by the Ombudsman and the complainant received a cryptic mail on 22.10.2010 that the “Complaint No. 200910014011994 got disposed, under Requiring consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and the proceedings before the Banking Ombudsman are not appropriate for adjudication of such complaint.” It is submitted that the complainant got robbed of hard money and the OP was not doing anything to compensate its customer. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following directions:-
“ (i) To refund the lost credit of 19,991/- along with interest @ 18% PA;
(ii) To pay an amount of Rs.100000/- towards the compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and on account of the mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses suffered by the complainant;
(iii) To pay the litigation amount of Rs.10,000/-.”
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that in order to avoid misuse of the internet banking facilities by unauthorized or unscrupulous elements it was widely circulated at the internet web site as well as on the notice board of the OP bank for the adherence and consumption (sic) of its esteemed customers that their ID Nos. and passwords etc. be not shared with anyone. Admittedly, the complainant responded to such unwanted call thereby disclosing his ID and password etc. to some unscrupulous persons/hackers in violation of the terms and conditions applicable and now trying to blame the OP bank on account of illegal transaction from his saving fund account without any justification. It is stated that the alleged loss and agony caused to the complainant was on account of his own lapse and failure to adhere with the terms and conditions of the OP pertaining to use and operation of internet banking facilities and on the basis of mere unsubstantial allegations, the OP bank cannot be held guilty or responsible for the alleged loss or harassment suffered by the complainant. It is denied that the OP bank called the complainant and dictated an application. The complainant is a well educated person. It is submitted that the OP looked into the matter after receiving written complaint from the complainant and on verification it was found that saving fund account of the complainant had got into fishing network. It is further stated that on 07.10.09 the complainant was explained about the status of his saving fund account in the light of his written complaint and as such there was nothing new to be informed. The OP bank was directed to appear before the Ombudsman in connection with the application made by the complainant. It is denied that the OP was directed by the Ombudsman to give money back to the complainant on account of alleged lacunae in the system of the transaction. It is also denied that the OP submitted before the Ombudsman that their system was at an initial/experimental stage. It is submitted that neither there was any unfair trade practice nor deficiency in service being rendered by the OP. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a counter reply to the written statement filed by the OP. It is denied that the complainant had shared his password and ID.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Surjan Singh, Sr. Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the complainant was maintaining a saving bank account No. 0153000110016709 with the OP and at the time of doing a transaction on 5th October 2009 he came to know that there was no balance in the account but on 1st October 2009 there was a balance of Rs.19,991/- in his account. The complainant made a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman and the Banking Ombudsman vide email dated 22.10.2010 informed both the parties that “ Complaint No. 200910014011994 got disposed, under Requiring consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and the proceedings before the Banking Ombudsman are not appropriate for adjudication of such complaint”. We mark the copy of email as Mark A for the purposes of identification.
It is evident from the pleadings and documents filed on the record that some amount was credited/deposited twice in the bank account of the complainant and one time Rs.19991/- were debited from his saving bank account. When the amounts were credited in his account, the complainant had not informed the OP but when the amount was debited the complainant filed the complaint with the OP. Complainant has not filed any evidence on the record to show that the above said transactions were done in connivance and collusion with the officials of OP bank. The two amounts deposited/credited in his account between 01.10.2009 and 05.10.2009 have not been disclosed by him. Copy of the passbook has been filed by the complainant as Annexure I (now marked by us). Two amounts of Rs.16000/- and Rs.13,100/- were deposited in his account on 04.10.2009 while Rs.12000/- credited on 05.10.2009. As many as 5 transactions took place in his account on 05.10.2009 (Rs.49000/-, Rs.3500/-, Rs.11049.41p debited and Rs.3640/- credited). Hence, we hold that all these transactions had taken place with the consent of the complainant and it is he who had shared his bank account, password and ID with someone. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.12.2017.
