Haryana

StateCommission

A/349/2017

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESH KALRA - Opp.Party(s)

SAMRAT AHUJA

29 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                                                   

First Appeal No :  349 of 2017

Date of Institution: 28.03.2017

Date of Decision : 29.03.2019

 

 

 

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jagadhri Branch, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana), through its Branch Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

 

 

 

1.      Rajesh Kalra, aged 32 years, son of Madan Lal Kalra, resident of House No.C/2, 1170, Mahavir Colony, Hanuman Gate, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana)

 Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Oriental Bank of Commerce through its Director, E Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi.

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

 

3.      Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office, Karnal (Haryana) through its Manager.

Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Samrat Ahuja, counsel for the appellant.

                             Shri Naveen Manda, counsel for respondent No.1-complainant

                             Respondents No.2 & 3 as performa respondents

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          The instant appeal has been filed by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Jagadhari against the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar whereby complaint filed by Rajesh Kalra under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was partly allowed and the opposite parties directed to credit the amount of Rs.51,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization in the account of the complainant and the order to be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of the order failing which the complainant was entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum as per law.

2.      In his complaint, complainant Rajesh Kalra alleged that he was maintaining his savings bank account with the Jagadhari Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce for the last two and three years.  Sometime back in the month of June, 2010, he received a call-cum-intimation from the bank that some debit entries had taken place from his savings account without his consent.  Accordingly, his account was frozen.  The bank instructed him not to issue any cheque from his savings account.  Upon this, the complainant made an enquiry and was shocked to know that an amount of Rs.51,000/- was transferred from his account on 21.06.2010 through internet banking whereas the complainant was totally unaware regarding the transaction. On 24.06.2010, the complainant after being approached by the bank, came to know that some fraudulent transactions were made from his account without his knowledge and consent, which was deficiency in service on the part of the bank.  The complainant requested the bank to refund the amount of Rs.51,000/-, which was withdrawn without his consent but the bank firstly lingered on the matter on one pretext on the other and finally refused to repay the amount.  Legal notice was also served upon the bank to repay the amount of Rs.51,000/- alongwith interest and other losses but the bank did not bother to reply to the same.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      After putting in appearance, the Jagadhari Branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce as well as the Director and Manager of Regional Office of the bank filed written statement and took various preliminary objections.  It was stated that the complainant was having account with the Jagadhari Branch of the bank and enjoying internet banking services with the facility of view and fund transfer.  Such a facility could be undertaken when the user had valid user ID and also valid Login and transaction password.  The bank had recommended strong security measures in the net banking system and it was ensured that all the data from customer’s system to net banking server and vice-a-versa was transferred in encrypted manner.  In case of transfer of funds through internet banking, the transactions could be undertaken after logging in the internet banking site of the bank or in putting the transaction password as defined by the customer itself.  The transactions through internet banking are facilitated only after           in-putting valid passwords by the customer and only he had the custody of these passwords.  Without the customer compromising and sharing his confidential details such as User ID and Transaction Password, transfer of funds from his account could not happen.  As The customer had not followed the advises sent from time to time for ensuring confidentiality of his Login ID and transaction password for the safety and security of transactions through net banking. As per record of the bank, the transaction through net banking in the account of the complainant had been done by using net banking credentials.  On 24.06.2010 email was received by the Mumbai Branch of the bank from DIT Department, Head Office, New Delhi that two suspicious transactions amounting to Rs.51,000/- had taken place through internet banking application using the complainant’s valid User ID and password on 21.06.2010 from the account of complainant and the Mumbai office of the bank lodged two complaints with the police on 24.05.2010 and 25.06.2010 in respect of the said transactions against Ajay S. Yadav and Ashish R. Shah.  On receipt of the information of the suspicious transactions and the complaint from the complainant about the said suspicious transactions, the same were duly attended and prompt action was taken by the bank.  The complainant was also informed, who replied to the queries.  He was requested to provide the bank, details of circumstances under which he had disclosed his net banking credentials like Login ID, Login Password.  The complainant had also filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman but the same was dismissed.  Hence, the dismissal of the complaint was sought.

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence brought on record by the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the bank to credit the amount of Rs.51,000/- alongwith interest in the account of the complainant. 

5.      Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, the State Commission finds that the bank lodged two complaints with the police in respect of the above two transactions against Ajay S. Yadav and Ashish R. Shah and it had already taken action against the culprits much prior to intimation to the complainant.  The bank had lodged a complaint with the police on 24.05.2010 whereas the complainant was informed on 25.06.2010 by way of email.  If the bank was having knowledge in respect of fraud committed by Ajay S. Yadav and Ashish R. Shah then it was required to take appropriate steps to secure the accounts of the account holders maintained with the bank.  Though the bank claims to have implemented strong security measures but at the same time it admitted that two aforesaid culprits made the fraudulent transactions from the accounts maintained by the complainant and the bank lodging the police cases.  Meaning thereby that the net banking system of the bank was faulty due to which certain fraudulent transactions were made by the culprits.

6.      In view of the above, learned District Forum was justified in partly allowing the complaint and directing the bank to credit the amount of Rs.51,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in the account of the complainant.  As such, the instant appeal is without any merit and therefore accordingly dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal be released in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. 

 

Announced 29.03.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK