An application has been filed by the complainant against the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of this case is that the complainant namely Somesh Oraon in the year of 2013 applied before the State Bank of India, Hasimara Branch for opening a bank account in his name with supporting all the documents which were demanded by the bank to open a new account. After verification all the documents and after completion of all the formalities the bank authority of State Bank of India, Hasimara Branch opened an account in the name of complainant vide Account No. 32956634331 attached to Hasimara Branch vide IFSC No. SBIN0001447, CIF No. 86699678243. After opening the said account the Bank authority gave him a passbook to operate the said account but the complainant had seen that the father name and address is not matching with him, than the complainant informed the bank and bank authority cut the first reference page of said passbook through pen and in the following page again printed the reference in the complainant name after that the complainant deposited the money in the said account but he could not verify the said account and even no telephonic message  he received for the transaction of the said account.

            After that on 24/01/2022 the complainant went to bank and came to know that around two lakhs rupees has been missing from his account, but the manager of the bank did not given any satisfactory reply even he denied to give any statement of account, then the complainant went to bank with his two local guardian and the said guardian challenged to manager that the manager is bound to give the said statement of account then the respondent No. 1 compelled to give the statement of account.

            That after getting the said statement of account the complainant became astonished that total Rs. 1,74,948/- has been withdrawn by some other person, the respondent No. 1 did not given any satisfactory reply and also misbehave with the complainant.

            Thereafter, on 29/01/2022 the complainant lodged a complaint before the Branch Manager of the said bank.  Subsequently, the complainant came to know that one Somesh Oraon S/O – Jira Oraon at Malangi Tea Garden, P.O. – Hasimara was withdrawing the money from his account. After that the complainant contact with the said Somesh Oraon and he admitted that he was withdrawing the same and he said that he did not know that who is send the said amount of money in the said account.

            Thereafter the complainant came to know that the respondent No. 2 is an account holder of same branch at respondent No. 1 and his account number is same i.e. 32956634331. After getting the said information the complainant informed the matter to the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 stated that somehow two accounts has been opened in same number and directed to the complainant to go to that said person and demand his money, as the bank has nothing to do. As per the direction of bank authority the complainant agent went to the respondent No. 2 and the said person strongly denied to return the said money and also stated that if any question raised on return money then the bank staff including manager of the said branch will return the same as all of them consumed money.

            Hence, this case filed by the complainant before the District Commission on against the O.ps with a prayer to pay Rs. 1,74,948/- with interest to the complainant which O.P No. 1 received from the complainant and also prayed for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for his mental agony and harassment by the O.Ps and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation cost from the O.Ps.

            In the instant case it appears from the case record that on 15/07/2022 both O.Ps have appeared in this case by filing Vakalatnama and on 20/09/2022 O.P No. 1 filed written version to contest the case. After that on 06/01/2023 O.P No. 1 filed evidence-on-affidavit and on 22/03/2023 Ld. Advocate on behalf of the O.P No. 1 submits that his evidence-on-affidavit should be treated as written argument.

            Though O.P No. 2 was appeared before this Commission on 15/07/2022 but after that he did not file any written version to contest the case. So this case has been proceeded ex-parte against O.P No. 2.

            In support of this case the complainant has filed some documents, evidence-on-affidavit as well as written argument in this case.

            These documents are given below –

1. Annexure – 1 (Xerox copy of wrong mentioned passbook issued in the name of another person).
2. Annexure – 2 (Xerox copy of passbook first reference page of complainant).
3. Annexure – 3 (Xerox copy of bank statement in the account of complainant).
4. Annexure – 4 (Xerox copy of complaint)
5. Annexure – 5 (Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card of complainant).

O.P No. 1 denying all the materials allegations and contended inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable either in law or in facts and stated that the actual facts remain that the bank account duly connected with AADHAAR Vide Aadhaar No. 642908567878 and Biometric System and the subject account of this instant suit Vide A/C No. 32956634331 is hereby generated in the name of Somesh Oraon, S/O – Jira Oraon at Malangi Tea Garden and the mode of operation to withdraw the said amounts by AADHAAR  Fetch at the CSP outlet as per statement of account which is annexure – 3 by the complainant and it is not possible for anyone to withdraw the amount without giving his Biometric which is linked with AADHAAR and also stated that if the complainant possessed this account then why he had not filed any application to change the AADHAAR which is already linked and also stated that if it crystal clear that the complainant is a third party and it is not his account and as per annexure – 5 given by the complainant his AADHAAR number vide Aadhaar No. 65313831 is not matching with the subject account vide A/C No. 32956634331.

We have gone through the materials on record very carefully and also perused the documents which are lying an record.

In this context, the following issues are necessarily come up for the proper adjudication of the case.

                                         POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
2. Has this Commission jurisdiction to try the instant case?
3. Is there any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the O.Ps?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?

     DECISION WITH REASONS

            Considering the nature and character of the case all these points are interlinked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience. The case has been filed u/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant.

Point No. 1:-  A person who avails at any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a ‘Consumer” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. It is admitted that the complainant opened a bank account in his name in the State Bank of India vide A/C No. 32956634331 attached to Hasimara Brnach Vide IFSC No. sbin0001447, CIF No. 86699678243 and the complainant started to deposit money in the said account, so there is no hesitation that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning u/s. 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point No. 2:- It is seen from this case record that the complainant and the O.P No. 2 resides and the O.P office i.e. the State Bank of India, Hasimara Branch situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this case as per u/s. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point Nos. 3 & 4:- These two issues are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity. It is admitted position that the complainant being an account holder with the O.P bank  and started to deposited money in that said account vide A/C No. 32956634331 attached to Hasimara Branch vide IFSC No. SBIN 0001447, CIF No. 86699678243. On 24/01/2022 the complainant went to bank and came to know that around 2 Lakh rupees has been missing from his account, but the manager of the bank did not given any satisfactory reply even he denied to give any statement of account after that on the same day the complainant went to bank with his two local well wisher and challenged to manager then the manager of that bank gave the statement of that said account to the complainant. After getting the said account the complainant became astonished that total Rs. 1,74,948/- has been withdrawn by some other person, and the branch manager after repeated request did not given any satisfactory reply also he did misbehave with the complainant.

The question is, is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P or is there any negligence on the part of the O.P and is the complainant entitled to get any relief or relieves as prayed for?

It is revealed from the documents filed by the complainant and also looked into the written version filed by the O.P No. 1 and evidence as well as written argument filed by the O.P No. 1 minutely.

It was observed by the Commission that the bank could not present any such documents or any such evidence to prove the allegation against the O.P bank.

It is the duty to the bank to verify truthfulness of the bank transactions and should have strong securing systems and protocols in place to protect customers account from fraud and theft but here we observed that the bank kept one account number of two persons i.e. 32956634331, how is this possible? We also observed that in paragraph No. 9 of written version filed by the O.P No. 1 that the bank account duly connected with the Aadhaar vide Aadhaar No. 642908567878 and biometric system and the subject account of this instant suit vide A/C No. 32956634331 is generated in the name of Somesh Oraon S/O – Jira Oraon of Malangi Tea Garden. We find that the bank has linked the Aadhaar Card wih the account number that Aadhaar Card is not of the complainant but that Aadhaar Card belongs to the O.P No. 2. That why the biometric matches with the O.P No. 2 and the O.P No. 2 picked them up early by biometric, which was deposited by the complainant in the said bank account.

We find from the documents filed by the complainant from Annexure – 1 that the passbook at first was issued in the name of Somesh Oraon S/O - Jira Oraon of Malangi Tea Garden P.O. – Hasimara, Jalpaiguri in which the account number is 32956634331 and CIF No. 86699678243 Annexure - 2 is the first page of another passbook where the photograph of the complainant was attested by the bank concern in which the name of the customer is Somesh Oraon S/O - Emil Oraon of Madhya Satali P.O. - Satali Mandal Para, Jalpaiguri in which the account and CIF number is the same.  The Annexure - 3 is the bank statement of accounts in which it appears that the name of the customer of Somesh Oraon of Madhya Satali P.O. - Satali Mandal Para, Jalpaiguri from this three documents. We find that the savings account was opened in the name of two persons of different address and different father names but the account and CIF number is the same. How it is possible? These documents clearly indicate that there is a laches from the part of the bank authority that is the O.P No. 1 and their negligence and deficiency in service has been proved from these documents. The contention of the written version and the evidence-on-affidavit of O.P No. 1 has not been supported by these documents.

It can be stated as such that there is the negligence on the part of the O.P bank as well as the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P bank. The Commission observed that there is no negligence on the part of the complainant.

The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has passed an important ruling in which it states that if hackers fraudulent withdraw money from a person’s bank account, the bank would be responsible for the loss, not the customer.

The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission referred the case of Punjab National Bank and Another Vs Leader Valves 11(2020) CPJ 92(NC) in which the Commission has held the bank liable for all unauthorized and fraudulent electronic banking transaction. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission referred the RBI circular bearing NO. DBR NO. Leg Be  78/09 07 005/2017-2018 dated 6^th July, 2017 issued to all commercial bank, as per which the customer has zero liability where an unauthorized transactions occurred due to fraud, negligence on the part of the bank or any third party breach.

In view of the above mentioned discussions it is clear that the complainant is a rustic village people belong to trial community used to work outside the state as migrant labour and from his heard carrying he used to deposit the amount to his own bank account but surprisingly it is revealed from the statement of that said account that an amount of total Rs. 1,74,948/- has been siphoned from his account due to the negligence causing by the O.P bank and the complainant also mentally as well as physically harassed due to the negligence and deficiency in service by the bank. As such the bank is wholly responsible for harassment and the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-

   ORDERED

that the instant case be and the same is allowed against O.P No. 1 and ex-parte against O.P No. 2 on contest. The complainant do get the award amounting to Rs. 1,74,948/- (One Lakh Seventy Four Thousands and Nine Hundred Forty-Eight Only) for his claim of his bank deposit amount along with interest of 8% Per annum from the date of claim to till the realization of the amount. The complainant is also do get an award amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) as compensation for his harassment, mental agony and sufferings and also Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousands Only) as his litigation costs; total decreetal amount of Rs. 2,84,948/- (Two Lakh Eighty Four Thousands  and Nine Hundred Forty-Eight Only) excluding interest. The O.P No. 1 is hereby directed to comply this order within 30 days from this day, failing which legal action will be taken against him. O.P No. 1 is at liberty to realize the amount of Rs. 1, 74,948/- from O.P No. 2 who has withdrawn the said amount from the account of complainant. But at first O.P No. 1 has to pay the entire award amount along with interest to the complainant.

Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.

Dictated & Corrected by me