BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 15th day of December 2023.
PRESENT:
Shri. D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member
C.C. No.156/2022
Complainant
Parameswaran, S/o.Padmanabhan, Nadathedath House, Nochimakara, Aluva, NAD P.O.
Opposite party
Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd., Kalamassery P.O., Pin-683 104
(o.p rep. by Adv.P.A.Augustine, 91, DD Tex World, Market Road, Kochi-11)
O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
The complainant states that he is an account holder of the opposite party bank bearing account number 0224053000022342. While so, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.30,001/- and Rs.30,001/- were deducted from the account of the complainant on 03/04/2021 in between 7 am and 9 am. Complainant alleges that the complainant was contacted from the bank over his phone and introduced as Manager Customer care and obtained his account details stating that it is for verification and had cheated by withdrawing the amount.
The complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to refund the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- deducted from his account. But the opposite party had not refunded the amount stating that they are not liable to refund the amount to the complainant. Due to the negligent act of the opposite party, the complainant approached the Commission for issuing direction to the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- along with interest @8% and other reliefs.
2) Notice
Upon notice from this Commission the opposite party approached the Commission and filed their version.
3) Version of the opposite party
In the version the opposite party contended that the averment in paragraph one is correct. The averments in other paragraph are to be proved with evidences by the complainant. The opposite party stated that no officials from the opposite party Bank had contacted the complainant and never requested for sharing the account details and the onetime pass word. The complainant alone is at fault if he had given his account number and the onetime password to the fraudsters to facilitate the withdrawal of the amount by them. Since the account of the complainant was debited after sharing the account number and onetime password the complainant himself is responsible for the loss of any amount from the account of the complainant.
The averment and allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the complaint are false, incorrect and denied by the opposite party The opposite party submitted that the complainant has given a complaint regarding the loss of amount from his account. However, on verification it is understood that the loss of the amount occurred from the account of the complainant was not due to any negligence or laches from the part of the opposite party but it was due to the sharing of the account number and the onetime password by the complainant to the fraudsters to facilitate the withdrawal of the amount by them. Hence the opposite party is unable to refund the amount to the complainant. On receipt of the lawyer notice from the complainant, the opposite party informed him about the inability to refund the amount as claimed in the lawyer notice. Hence no reply was sent to the lawyer notice. The opposite party submitted that the messages were sent to the registered mobile number of the complainant for each transactions while the alleged transactions were effected. Even then the complainant had not taken any effective steps to prevent the loss of amount from his account. The opposite party was not at all negligent in any manner for the loss of the amount of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as claimed. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount, interest and cost from the opposite party as claimed.
4) Evidences
The complainant has produced ExbtA1 to A8 documents. Exbt.A3 and A4 are series and the opposite party had produced Exbt.B1 document.
The complainant was examined in box and deposition recorded. Exbt.A1 is a copy of the account statement.
Exbt.A2 is the acknowledgment card issued by the Bank.
Exbt.A3 is also acknowledgment card
Exbt.A4 is receipt issued by cyber cell
Exbt.A5 is newspaper cutting.
Exbt.A6 is the first information report of police
Exbt.A7 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
Exbt.A8 is the postal acknowledgment card.
Opposite party produced one document ie., Exbt.B1 which is a copy of the orders of the Apex Court (citation)
5) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) Point No. (i)
Ongoing through the complaint, version and evidences from both sides, it is seen that the complainant had lost the above said amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from his account maintained with the opposite party bank on 03.04.2021 in between 7 am and 9 am. The complainant had himself admitted that the complainant had made a call to the customer care number of South Indian Bank ie., 18004127344 in the deposition given before the police which are recorded in their FIR. Subsequently, the complainant had received a call back from the same number after a short while which is also stated in the FIR produced by the complainant and marked as Exbt.A6. Subsequent developments seem to be that the complainant had disclosed his account number and OTP to the person introduced himself as manager of customer care. The disclosure of OTP over phone to a person called in the number of the complainant and introduced himself as customer care manager cannot be attributed as deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party bank. Infact, the bank in no way seems to be responsible for the disclosure of the OTP by the complainant. Moreover it is stated by the opposite party that the contact number 18004127344 stated by the complainant from which he has received the call is not the customer care number of the opposite party, which is also not proved by the complainant in his favour with evidences. Moreover, messages were sent by the bank to the registered phone number of the complainant soon after each transaction which is also not disputed by the complainant. Above all, it is due to the timely interference of the bank the balance amount of the complainant was saved without abduction and theft and therefore bank cannot be blamed for any deficient service or unfair trade practice. Hence the Commission do not find any merit in the case of the complainant and the complainant had not proved his case in his favour and therefore point No. (i) is found against the complainant.
7) Point Nos. (ii) and (iii)
Having found point No.(i) against the complainant, we do not have examined point Nos.(ii) and (iii).
Therefore, the following orders are issued.
The instant complaint is dismissed with no cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on 15th day of December 2023.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
uk Assistant Registrar
