Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/192/2022

SHANKAR MOHAN MALHOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jun 2023

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.192/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Shankar Mohan Malhotra, R/o 119, Timarpur, Lancer Road, Opp. Delhi University, Metro Station, Delhi- 110054	Complainant
	Versus
1.	State Bank of India, Through its Branch Manager, Derwal Nagar Branch, B-248, Derawal Nagar Near Commercial Complex, Delhi-110009	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

06.04.2018 28.02.2023 12.06.2023

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is having saving bank account no. 103310617201 in the Derawal Nagar branch of State Bank of India. It is alleged that on 16.03.2017 at 01.11 a.m. the Complainant received a message from the Opposite Party bank that an amount of Rs. 16,000/- has been transferred to flipkart through internet banking. Immediately the Complainant made a call to the customer care of the Opposite Party bank regarding the same. The Complainant also instructed the customer care to block the internet banking. Despite that after about 15 hours at 04.00 p.m. the Complainant again got a message that a sum of Rs. 1,602/- was transferred to some SBI account through NEFT. The Complainant also made a complaint in the flipkart and instructed that the delivery of article be stopped. The Complainant also lodged a complaint in the police station Model Town on 18.03.2017. He also made a complaint through email but nothing was done and he was told that the matter has been sent to Ombudsman. Complainant has alleged deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party bank and has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages along with the amount withdrawn from his account.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant has not submitted any documentary record in support of his contention. It is stated that that there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party bank. It is alleged that the Opposite Party bank is a Government Sector Nationalized bank. It is stated that the Complainant has made online payment to the flipkart and the online payment is possible only after feeding the OTP which comes on the registered mobile number of the customer. Therefore, no fraudulent transaction can take place. It is stated that the allegations made by the Complainant are false. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3.  The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri. Krishan Kumar Malik, Branch Manager with State Bank of India, B/o Derawal Nagar, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that on 16.03.2017 at 01.11 a.m. he received the message from the Opposite Party bank that an amount of Rs. 16,000/- had been transferred to flipkart throng internet banking. It is his case that he instructed the customer care of the bank to stop internet banking and even thereafter at about 04.00 p.m. an amount of Rs. 1,602/- was transferred to some account. It is the case of the Complainant that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party bank.
7. The case of the Opposite Party bank is that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party bank. It is the case of the Opposite Party that for doing the online payment/transaction OTP comes on the registered mobile phone of the customer and after feeding the OTP the transaction can be completed.
8.  It is a well-known fact that in case a person makes online payment an OTP is given to the customer on his registered phone number and after feeding the said OTP the transaction can be completed. In the present case, the Complainant has not clarified this aspect as to how the online transaction can be completed without OTP. Therefore, under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the complaint is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 12.06.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)