STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

TRIPURA: AGARTALA

CASE NO.A.36 OF 2021

1. The Federal Bank Ltd., Agartala Branch,

Represented by the Branch Manager of the Federal Bank,

Agartala Branch, Premises No.824, Jagananath Bari Road,

Behind Jagannath Temple,

P.O-Agartala, P.S-West Agartala,

District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001.

2. The Federal Bank Ltd., Registered Head Office,

Represented by the General Manager of the Head Office of the Federal Bank Ltd, P.B.No.103, Federal Towers, Aluva-683101,

Kerala, India

.…… ………Appellants.

Vs.

Sri Abhijit Debbarma,

S/O Lt. Ram Mohan Debbarma,

Resident of Nutan Pally, Krishnanagar, Agartala,

District-West Tripura.

Presently residing at:

Mission Compound, A. D. Nagar,

P.O & P.O – A. D. Nagar,

District- West Tripura, Pin-799003

.  ………………………….Respondent

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

PRESIDENT, STATE COMMISSION

DR. CHHANDA BHATTACHARYYA

MEMBER, STATE COMMISSION

MR. KAMALENDU BIKASH DAS

MEMBER, STATE COMMISSION

For Appellant(s)                   :       Mr. L. Datta, Advocate

For Respondent(s)               :       Mr. D. Debnath, Advocate  

order

17.05.2022

                   This appeal is filed by the appellants-Bank against the judgment dated 15.09.2021, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C. 63 of 2020.

2.             Fact in brief is that the account of the complainant-respondent has been hacked. This Commission asked a question to the learned counsel of the appellants-Bank whether the Bank had alerted the consumer, i.e the complainant-respondent at any point of time that his account was hacked by someone.

3.             It is the case of the appellants-Bank that the consumer i.e the respondent had informed the Bank after six months for which they refused to refund the hacked amount to the complainant.

4.             In this situation, learned District Commission decided that the appellant-Bank was in default by not alerting the consumer immediately after such false transaction by the hacker.

5.             In view of the matter, the appellant-Bank is liable to refund the hacked amount.

6.             Accordingly, it is ordered to refund the hacked amount to the respondent-complainant within a period of 7(seven) days from today. Otherwise, the respondent shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum till the date of realization.

7.             Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned District Commission stands upheld and affirmed and the instant appeal stands dismissed.