Date of filing of the case- 4.5.2016
Date of order. –05.08.2017
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
The case of the complainant is that he is having a mobile banking service attached to his SB Account No.1134194431. The complainant used to recharge his Dish TV through the said mobile banking. Accordingly on dt.10.12.2015, the complainant sent message for recharge of his Dish TV at 4.38 P.M, but since he has not received any message regarding successful recharge of his Dish TV again he has sent a message at 9.42 P.M which was also not responded. But to the surprise of the complainant he was informed that a sum of Rs 4,750/- was debited from his account through mobile banking for sending 19messages for recharge of his Dish T.V. The complainant alleges that although he has sent two messages for recharge of his TV, he was charged for 19 messages, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. Although notice has been served on O.Ps No.2 to 4 neither they appears nor have filed their written version and hence they are set exparte vide order dt.29.6.2017. O.P.No.1 contested the case by filing his written version. According to O.P.No.1 after receiving complaint from the complainant on dt.21.3.2016, the O.P.No.1 on his inquiry from the Mobile Banking Service Team found that, there was 19 messages from the complainant for recharge of his Dish T.V. and accordingly the amount was debited from his account. The O.P.No.1 denied all the allegations of the complainant and claims no deficiency in service on his part.
3. The complainant was absent on the date of hearing. Perused the complaint petition and documentary evidence filed by the complainant. Heard the learned advocate appearing o behalf of O.P.No.1. From the pleadings and material available on record, the point for consideration is whether there are two messages sent by the complainant or 19 messages sent by the complainant on dated 10.12.2015 for debiting the amount through the mobile banking service towards recharge of his Dish T.V. In support of his case the complainant has filed the message details from BSNL and to prove its case the O.P. No.1 has filed the transaction details of the mobile banking ser vie team. It is seen from the report of the BSNL that, on dt.10.12.2015 the complainant had sent only two SMS to the called No.34059223440000. BSNL is a mobile service provider and through his service only sending of a message is possible. Therefore the report of the BSNL is believable and hence it is evident that the complainant had sent only two messages on dt.10.12.2015. The O.P has simply relied on the report of the mobile banking team and has not explained under what circumstances they have received 19 messages. The No.1 has also not produced any affidavit evidence of the staff of the mobile banking team to show that the system or any machine used in the service is a genuine one without any mistake.
4. It is argued on behalf of the O.P No.1 that the complainant is using the Dish TV without any further recharge till the amount is exhausted and hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief. This argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, without the consent of the account holder, the O.P.No.1 cannot debit the amount unauthorisedly. The O.P simply believing the report of the mobile banking service team, remained silent over the matter and has not taken any step to protect the account of its customer which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1. Hence ordered.
ORDER.
The O.P.No.1 is directed to refund Rs 4,250/- (Four thousand two hundred fifty) to the complainant with interest @ 6% P.A. from 10.12.2015 till payment and further directed to pay Rs 500/- (Rupees five hundred) towards cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
