JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL) FA/386/2018 & IA/4990/2018 & IA/4991/2018 The complainant/appellant is the Principal of DAV Public School, P.O. Midnapore who filed the complaint on behalf of DAV Public School Midnapore. The previous Principal of the School Mr. S.K. Sinha had a personal savings bank account with Midnapore branch of the respondent bank. Being Principal of the school, he was one of the joint signatories to three other bank accounts, two of which were in the name of the school and the third one was in the name of B.B. Parija imprest. He had applied for net banking facility in his personal account but no request had been made for providing Internet Banking facility for the other accounts. Mr. Sanjiva Kumar Sinha being one of the authorized signatories to the school accounts, his CIS (Customer Information Folio) somehow got tagged to the school accounts, enabling him to operate his personal account as well as the school accounts. As a result of aforesaid tagging, the User ID and Password as well as the Transaction Password of the personal account of Mr. Sinha could also be used to operate the school accounts. 2. Several withdrawals were made from the school accounts between 5.9.2014 to 10.9.2014 using Internet Banking facility. 3. A duplicate SIM was obtained from BSNL against the mobile number of Mr. Sinha and according to the complainant, he did not receive any message in respect of the aforesaid Internet Banking transactions. The matter was also reported to the police and an FIR was lodged by the school in respect of the withdrawals from the school account. The complainant thereafter approached the concerned State Commission seeking reimbursement of the amount which had been withdrawn from the school account along with compensation. 4. The complaint was resisted by the bank which admitted that the school had not applied for facility of Internet Banking to be made available in respect of its bank account. It was alleged in the written version filed by the bank that even after coming to know of the alleged fraudulent withdrawals, the complainant had not approached the bank to block the Internet Banking account. It was stated in the reply filed by the respondent that it was Mr. Sinha who was having custody of his User ID, Login Password and the Transaction Password and the transactions could not have been made through Internet Banking without using those User ID, Login Password and the Transaction Password. In addition thereto, ‘One Time Password’ (OTP) is also sent to the mobile number of the customer after he enters User ID, Login Password and the Transaction Password. Without correct OTP being fed in the system, the transaction cannot go through. 5. The State Commission having dismissed the complaint, the appellant/complainant is before this Commission by way of this appeal. 6. It is not in dispute that the school had not applied to the bank for providing Internet Baking facility in its accounts. It was, therefore, a mistake on the part of the bank to tag the aforesaid accounts to the personal account of the complainant Mr. Sanjiva Kumar Sinha. 7. The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the transactions could have taken place without connivance or at least gross negligence of Mr. Sanjiva Kumar Sinha. It is not in dispute that as per the system of the bank, no Internet Banking transaction could have taken place without use of the Login ID, Login Password and Transaction Password provided by the bank to Mr. Sanjiva Kumar Sinha in respect of his personal account. The aforesaid ID and Passwords were known only to Mr. Sinha. Even the bank officers do not know the Login Password and the Transaction Password provided to a customer. Therefore, the only possibility in the matter is that either the transactions were made by Mr. Sinha himself or he had shared the Login ID and Password as well as the Transaction Password with some other person who used the same for making these transactions. In either case, it is Mr. Sinha who would be solely responsible for the aforesaid transactions to happen. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the Login Password and Transaction Password are sent by the bank to the account holder on his mobile if so requested by him, there is no such averment in the complaint. There is no evidence that the Login Password and the Transaction Password are sent by the bank to the account holder on his mobile, if so requested by him. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention that some unscrupulous person obtained duplicate SIM of the mobile phone of Mr. Sinha and then obtained the User ID, Login Password and the Transaction Password, using the said duplicate SIM in respect of the mobile phone of Mr. Sanjiva Kumar Sinha. The complaint was therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 8. It is not in dispute that without OTP being sent on the mobile phone of the customer, transaction through net banking facility cannot be made. The case of the complainant in this regard appears to be that someone had obtained a duplicate SIM card against mobile of Mr. Sinha and used that SIM card to make these transactions. The transactions disputed by the complainant lasted 6 days between 5.9.2014 to 10.9.2014. It is difficult to believe that the mobile being used by Mr. Sinha remained inactive for so many days without creating a suspicion in his mind. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that Mr. Sinha assumed that mobile network was not available. I however, find it difficult to accept that Mr. Sinha did not get any network for 6 days and did not bother even to lodge a complaint, stating so, to the service provider. The State Commission also noted in this regard that as per the reply of the service provider of the SIM card, namely, BSNL, the duplicate SIM was issued on compliance of necessary formalities and thereafter the connection was ported out from BSNL to Bharti Airtel and was eventually transferred in the name of one Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Sinha residing at the same address where Mr. Sanjiva Kumar Sinha the then Principal of the school was residing. This is yet another circumstance which indicates the involvement of Mr. S.K. Sinha in the aforesaid fraudulent transactions. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission, directing the bank to pay compensation quantified at Rs.1 lakh to the complainant along with cost of litigation assessed at Rs.10,000/-. The appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. 10. The accompanying application seeking condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal also stands dismissed. Later on, Mr. Himanshu Munshi, Caveator for Respondent No.1 has appeared who has been apprised about the order. | 
