Presented by Miss R. Pattnayak, President .
(1) The case of the Complainant is that he is the consumer of BSNL mobile Number 9437534570. The Complainant has a saving bank account at State Bank of India, Bargarh Main Branch having his Account Number 11042818028 and the Complainant has also availed the Internet Banking facility for transaction of his Saving Account. On Dt.13/12/2011, some unknown person managed to replace a new sim in the name of the Complainant for his mobile number and Opposite Party No.1(one) issued the duplicate sim in exchange of existing Mobile No. 9437534570 with a ill-motive. On verification made by the Complainant , it was ascertained that one Nirmal Roy the Opposite Party No.7(seven) has obtained the New Sim Card in the name of the Complainant. As such the Opposite Party No.1(one) is liable for compensation for the loss caused to the Complainant of Rs.1,54,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty four thousand)only because due to blockage of Complainant mobile, Opposite Party No.7(seven) able to transfer an amount of Rs. 1,54,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty four thousand)only on Dt.13/12/2011 at 7.19 P.M. from the account of the Complainant bearing Account No.11042818028 with State Bank of India, Bargarh Main Branch (Opposite Party No.5(five)) to Nirmal Roy (Opposite Party No.7(seven)) account bearing Account No.20111395222 with State Bank of India, parks circus Branch (Opposite Party No.6(six)) of Kolkatta.
(2) That the Complainant is working at Raipur, Jayaswal NECO Industries Ltd., Siltara and he came to know that an amount of Rs.1,54,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty four thousand)only was transferred from his saving account to the account No.20111395222 stands in the name of Nirmal Roy at about 10 P.M. of Dt.13/12/2011. Immediately there after the Complainant intimated the fact to his father at Bargarh to lodge complaint before the Branch Manager, Main Branch, Bargarh to freeze the Saving Account of Nirmal Roy. The Complainant also send a fax message from Raipur to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bargarh to take immediate steps to freeze the account of Nirmal Roy. The Complainant could know that out of the transfer amount of Rs.1,54,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty four thousand)only, the Opposite Party No.7(seven) Nirmal Roy has managed to withdrawn Rs.84,000/-(Rupees eight four thousand)only from his account No.20111395222 on Dt.14/12/2011. Due to delay caused by the Opposite Party No.5(five), the Opposite Party No.7(seven) could be able to withdrawn the amount of Rs.84,000/-(Rupees eighty four thousand)only on Dt.14/12/2011. On Dt.13/11/2011 night withdrawn an amount of Rs.39,500/-(Rupees thirty nine thousand five hundred)only from Manik Tata ATM counter of Kolkatta and on Dt.14/12/2011 withdrawn Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand)only before 12 A.M. from the Cash Counter of Parks Circus Branch, State Bank of India, Kolkatta. As such the balance amount of Rs.69,500/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand five hundred)only remain in the account of Nirmal Roy which has been freezed by the Opposite Party No.5(five). On inquiry it is ascertained that a person in the name of Nirmal Roy is a fictitious person and he (Opposite Party No.7(seven)) has also not claime protest for the said amount and the account bearing No. 20111395222 has opened on Dt.12/12/2011 in connivance with Opposite Party No.6(six), the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Park Circus Branch of Kolkatta. As such the Complainant filed this case with following prayers.
To direct the Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.4(four) to compensate of Rs.84,500/-(Rupees forty four thousand five hundred)only with interest.
To direct the Opposite Party No.5(five) to credit the freeze amount of Rs.69,500/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand five hundred)only of Account No.20111395222 to the Account No.11042818028 of Complainant with State Bank of India, Bargarh (Opposite Party No.5(five).
To grant a compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only from Opposite Party No.1(one), No.4(four) and No.5(five) towards mental torture, suffering harassment inconvenience caused to the Complainant for their negligence service.
To grant a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards the cost of the proceeding from Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.4(four) for carelessly replace the sim to Opposite Party No.7(seven).
In support of his case the Complainant has filed the following documents:-
Xerox copy of Pass Book of Complainant with State Bank of India, Bargarh Main Branch bearing Account No. 11042818028, the original of which are verified by the Forum on Dt.13/08/2013.
Xerox copy of reply Dt.01/03/2012 of Opposite Party No.2(two) to the pleader Notices Dt.01/02/2012 of the Complainant along with application for change of sim and application to IIC, Angul Police Station, Angul.
Xerox copy of receipt No. 1655 Dt.23/01/2012 of S.D.O. (phone) Bargarh for replacement of SIM No.4688 to the Complainant for Mobile No. 9437534570.
(3) Notices were duly served upon the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Party No.1(one) to No.5(five) appeared and filed their version. The Opposite Party No.6(six) and No.7(seven) are remained absent in spite of repeated Notices issued against them and paper publication and as such they were set as ex-parte.
(4) That, the Opposite Party No.1(one) to No.4(four) BSNL appeared through their Advocate and filed their counter. In denying all the allegations of the Complainant, it is submitted that the Complainant has asked to issue fresh SIM card due to lost of the previous SIM card stands in the name of Complainant on proper verification. It is submitted that for Internet transactions the consumers are provided with the secret key word for their only personal use unless the secret key word is used, the stranger can not misuse the same and it is ought to be within the exclusive knowledge of the SIM card holder. As such they have no role regarding transfer of money from the account of the Complainant to any other account as alleged by the Complainant. More over as \per the provision of Sec-7(b) of India post and Telegraph Act, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the case and it can be done only in regular civil suit. As such the case against the Opposite Party No.1(one) to No.4(four) is liable to the dismissed.
(5) That, the Opposite Party No.5(five) also filed his written version denying all his liabilities. It is submitted that an outsider can no way be able to transfer an amount from the account of another customer without the involvement of the Account Holder. To operate Internet banking facility and to add a their party, beneficiary to transfer fund through Internet Banking, the operator/account holder is required to have one user I.D. a password, a profile password and one time passwords received in his Mobile phone registered with the bank, besides twenty four hour's time to add a third party. Only with the help of a mobile phone (Registered with bank) an amount can not be transferred by a third party unless the account holder is either involved or has passed the above stated user I.D. And passwords. After received of information from the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.5(five) had freezed the account number of Opposite Party No.7(seven) at 12.30 Noon. It is also submitted that, the Opposite Party No.5(five) is not at all responsible and liable for compensation as he has not caused any negligent for transfer of the alleged account and as such he is no way liable for the relief claimed against him by the Complainant.
(6) We have gone through the case in detail and perused the documents filed on record. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the Parties. It is not disputed that, the Complainant is a customer of Opposite Parties having State Bank Account No. 11042818028 and he has availed the facility of Internet (mobile) make Banking to transactions provided by the Opposite Party No.5(five).
On perusal of the claim filed by the Complainant as well as going through the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to No.5(five), it is ascertained that, an amount of Rs.1,54,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty four thousand)only has been transferred from the account of the Complainant to the account of Opposite Party No.7(seven). It is ascertained from the above discussion, that account open in the name of Opposite Party No.7(seven) is fictitious person as after freezing of the said account he did not claim or protest for the rest amount of Rs.69,500/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand five hundred)only and also did not appeared in the court in spite of several notices which returned with an endorsement “unknown address” and finally through “paper publication”.
It is alleged by the Complainant that, the account in the name of Opposite Party No.7(seven) was opened on Dt.12/12/2011 in the bank of Opposite Party No.6(six). The Opposite Party No.6(six) without proper verification i.e. without following the KYC norms and Rules allowed the person to open an account with supposed/alleged ulterior motive. Though the Opposite Party No.6(six) received Notice from this court. but he did not preferred to appear to file his version and did not adduce any oral or any documentary evidence to prove that before opening of account he has followed the KYC norms and Rules and he has no ulterior motive. As such it is clear that, the Opposite Party No.6(six) has either some malafide intention or is in connivance with the Opposite Party No.7(seven) for opening the account on Dt.12/12/2011, and for transfer of amount on Dt.13/12/2011 and for withdrawal of amount on Dt.14/12/2011.
For which Opposite Party No.6(six) refrained from appearance in this Court of law.
Further, Complainant alleged that the account of Opposite Party No.7(seven) was opened only on 13/12/2011 just to do this fraud but he did not filed any supportive document to prove this allegation. Opposite Party No.5(five) who appeared before the Forum also did nothing to prove this allegation negative which he could have done easily by procuring the account transaction details of Opposite Party No.7(seven) from Opposite Party No.6(six) Bank branch which could have brought a clear picture of the issue raised and this is a serious defect from the part of the Bank (Opposite Party No.5(five)).
Whatsoever, if we go by the contention of the Complainant who alleged that the account of Opposite Party No.7(seven) is opened only on 13/12/2011 raises question that how a person opens an account the day after he got the ATM debit card to withdraw the money where as ATM debit card and the pins comes from the head office through registered post after opening of the Account and that two separately and this question is not answered from any where and Opposite Party No.5(five) could have helped this Forum bringing the account details from Opposite Party No.6(six) and filed the document which he did not and refrained from obligations.
Presuming unauthorized and fraudulent withdrawal from his account, the Complainant in formed to the Opposite Party No.5(five) bank naratting all these facts and handed over to the Opposite Party No.5(five) a complaint for their interference and doing the needful. The Opposite Party No.5(five) received the complaint and freezed the account of Opposite Party No.7(seven). But the Opposite Party No.5(five) and No.6(six) neither enquiry or investigate the matter nor take any tangible action on the complaint of the Complainant, but remained silent over the mater. It was the obligation of the Opposite Party No.5(five) and No.6(six) to investigate in to the matter to reach at the conclusion as to whether the matter is true or not. More over, the Complainant has also given the detail account of transfer of amount from his account to the account of Opposite Party No.7(seven). But the Opposite Parties did not take any action in this regard. Even the Opposite Parties knowing the fact that the lump sum amount have been fraudulently transfer from the account of his customer but he fails to oblige the customer by giving the matter for investigation to any investigating agency. We feel that if the Opposite Parties after receiving the complaint of the Complainant would have been taken prompt action immediately, the matter would have been traced out at that point of time and amount would have been realized. So this is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.5(five) and No.6(six). Moreover, it is seen that such type of fraudulent transfer/withdrawal are happening now-a-days.
Further the Opposite Party No.1(one) to No.4(four) also without following the KYC procedure have issued the duplicate sim card. They have also filed any oral or documentary evidence to that they have followed all the procedure regarding the matter. So utter deficiency also proved on the part of Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.4(four)
The Complainant has come up with this case before this Forum to get privilege under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. This Forum has been created under the beneficiary legislation to help Socio-economically people to settle their grievances quickly with least expanse.
Hence Order.
- O R D E R -
From the above discussion, it is observed that Rs.69,500/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand five hundred)only is still in the account of Opposite Party No.7(seven) in the bank of Opposite Party No.6(six). The Opposite Party No.5(five) is here by directed to make necessary arrangement towards the release of Rs.69,500/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand five hundred)only from the account No. 20111395222 to the account of the Complainant bearing No. 11042818028. The Opposite Party No.6(six) is here by directed to credit the freeze amount of Rs.69,500/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand five hundred)only to the Complainant's account and also further directed to Opposite Party No.5(five) and No.6(six) pay Rs.84,500/-(Rupees eighty four thousand five hundred)only with simple savings interest to the account of Complainant within a period of two months from the date of this Order. Opposite Party No.5(five) can identify losses if any accrued in the procedure as per their own system/operational laws and rules. The Opposite Party No.1(one) to No.4(four) is here by directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards compensation to the Complainant as without proper verification they have issued the duplicate SIM Card, within two months from the date of Order i.e. Dt.19/05/2014, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 9%(nine percent) interest per annum till the actual realization of the entire amount.
The Complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree, (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak) ( Smt. Anjali Behera) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
