Order no. 2

Ld. Advocate for the Complainants is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Perused. Considered.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.

The Complainants state that they have a savings bank account number 10021600089 in State Bank of India in the Brach of opposite party no. 2. On 29.12.2022 after the office hours the Complainant no. 1 received a phone call from a person who disclosed his identity as Chief Branch Manager of opposite party no. 2 and asked the Complainant no. 1 to disclose the details of his savings account for the purpose of KYC. On being convinced, the Complainant no. 1 revealed the details of his savings account over phone. As the Complainant no. 1 had doubt in his mind, on the next day i.e on 30.12.2022 he rushed to the office of opposite party no. 2 and disclosed the incident. The opposite party no. 2 advised the Complainants to check their savings account. Accordingly, the Complainants updated their pass book and found Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lacks only) was debited by hacking from their account. The opposite party no. 2 advised the Complainants to meet a particular official of the bank and the said official advised the Complainants to make an application disclosing the facts. The Complainants wrote a letter to the Chief Manager, SBI PBB, Salk Lake Brach on 30.12.2022,  but the opposite party no. 2 refused to received the application and instructed the Complainants to lodged complaint with the Police. On the same date i.e. on 30.12.2022 the Complainant lodged FIR with the concerned Police Station. Thereafter, on 04.01.2023 the bank received the letter dated 30.12.2022 from the Complainant no. 2. According to the Complainants, it was the first and foremost duties of the opposite parties to receiv the written complaint from the Complainants and to inform the concerned Police Station. The opposite parties as not received the written complaint on 30.12.2022, is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this case.

It is apparent on face of the record that the Complainant no. 1 revealed his bank account details to unknown person over phone, which allegedly caused fraudulent online transfer from his bank account. The case of the Complainants is not simple case of deficiency in service, since it involved determination complex question of fact for which detailed specialized investigation is required which is not possible for a Consumer Commission in a summary manner. In a case Axis Bank Ltd. vs. Thomas Ninan and another, the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi observed that fraudulent online transfer from bank account vis-a-vis deactivation of sim and negligence of bank and mobile service provider need detailed investigation which is not possible for Consumer Forum in a summary manner.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the instant Commission lacks jurisdiction to try the case as such, the case is not maintainable.

Hence it is,

Ordered

that the Complaint case being no. CC/161/2023 be and the same is dismissed as not maintainable with a liberty to the Complainants to approach before the appropriate Court for legal redressal.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MRS. Firoza Khatoon]
PRESIDENT