Karnataka

Kolar

CC/13/2022

Gangappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, SBI - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jun 2022

ORDER

                          Date of Filing: 15.03.2022

Date of Disposal: 21.06.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated: 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2022

PRESENT

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI,B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 13 OF 2022

Sri. Gangappa,

S/o. Sriramappa,

Aged About 46 years,

R/at: Maruthi Badavane,

Near Venkateshwara Hospital,

Malur Town, Malur Taluk,

Kolar District.                                                                ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. M.C.Madhu Babu, Advocate)

- V/s –

1) The Manager,

State Bank of India,

JSS School Complex,

Malur Branch, Malur Town,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri. V.Sreedhara Murthy, Advocate)

 

2) The Manager,

INB ANI Technologies Private Limited,

Regent Insignia, No.414, 3^rd Floor, 4^th Block,

17^th Main, 100 Feet Road, Koramangala,

Bangalore-560034.

(Exparte)                                                                    …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

ORDER

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties and pray for direction to the Ops to refund the sum of Rs.1,01,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of withdrawal till realization of the amount.

02.     The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant is maintaining S.B account No. 31078139953 with the OP No.1 - Bank.  The complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from his Aunty through cheque and deposited the same with his above said S.B. account.  The complainant states that, on 06.04.2019 he was received phone calls from the cell phone numbers i.e., 8695393569 and 8250897356 at about 10.00 AM and told him that, they are from S.B.I Bank people and thereon the complainant cut down the calls.  The grievance of the complainant is that, when he visited his Bank for pass book entry he came to known that, his amount in deposit was withdrawn by INB, ANI technologies and through PAYTM.  Hence the complainant lodged complaint with the OP No.1 - Bank and also lodged complaint to the jurisdictional police.  Further complainant states that, OP No.1 - Bank has intimated him that, the OP No.2 has also maintained the account in their Bank and if the money is transferred to OP No.2 account, they will re-credit to the account of the complainant.   It is stated further that, the cyber crime police did not taken any kind of action against the withdrawal of the amount from the account of the complainant.  Hence the complainant alleges that OP No.1 - Bank is negligent and not acted in accordance with banking procedure. 

03.   On issuance of notice OP No.1 - Bank appeared through their counsel and filed their version, whereas OP No.2 did not appear and hence OP No.2 placed exparte.  Later the OP No.2 appeared through advocate and contested the matter without filing the version.

04.   In the version of OP No.1 - it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Further contended that, complaint is hopelessly bared by limitation on the ground that alleged incident had occurred on 06.04.2019 and complaint is filed on 15.03.2022.  It is also contended that OP No.1 – Bank is not aware of the loan transaction between the complainant and his aunty, so also about the unknown calls.  Further OP No.1 – Bank has contended that, OP No.1 - Bank has also not having any kind of knowledge about the illegal withdrawal of the amount from the complainant’s account.  The OP No.1 - Bank denied the averments that, OP No.1 told that, OP No.2 had bank account and the amount in deposit will be withheld and the same shall be credited to the complainant’s account as false and incorrect.  It is specifically contended by the OP No.1 – Bank that, the complainant has given letter to the Bank only on 12.04.2019 and it is not disclosed in his letter from whom or from which numbers he has received the phone calls and contended that, the alleged transactions will come under the cyber crime police jurisdiction only.  On the above grounds OP No.1 - Bank contended that, there is no deficiency of service from their part and prays to dismiss the complaint.

05.   In order to prove the case of the complainant and the OP No.1 both parties i.e., complainant and OP No.1 have filed their affidavit evidence along with the supporting documents.

06.   Heard arguments of complainant and Opposite parties.

07.   On the basis of the pleadings of complainant and OP No.1 the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

(1) Whether the compliant is hopelessly barred by limitation?

(2) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

(3) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint.

(4)    What order?

08.   Our findings on the above points are:-

        POINT No.(1):-                In the Negative

        POINT Nos.(2) & (3):-       Are in the Negative

POINT No.(4):-                 As per the final order

                for the following:-

REASONS

09.   POINT (1):- On perusing the complaint it is the grievance of the complainant that, he is maintaining the SB account bearing No.31078139953 with the OP No.1-Bank.  The main allegation of the complainant is that, on 06.04.2019 the complainant received the phone call from an unknown numbers i.e., 8695393569 and 8250897356 at about 10.00 AM and he was informed that, the call from the SBI people and thereby complainant has cut down the calls.  Further when the complainant approached the Bank for his pass-book entry he came to know that, the amount from his account to an extent of Rs.1,01,000/- was withdrawn from his account by the unknown people.  Thereafter he lodged complaint with the Bank and also to the jurisdictional police.

 

10.   Whereas the OP No.1 – Bank has also contended that, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.  In order to prove the case of the complainant, in support of the complaint he has filed an IA praying to condone the delay with affidavit.  On perusal of the affidavit the complainant has deposed that, due to pandemic he is not able to present the complaint well within time on this ground he sought for condonation of delay.

 

11.   On perusing the complaint and the version filed by the OP No.1-Bank it is not in dispute that the alleged incident was occurred on 06.04.2019,  the cause of action accrued to the complainant to present the complaint before this Commission within two years.  However the complaint is presented on 15.03.2022, but it is the known fact that the pandemic situation was commenced from 20.03.2020 and lockdown is declared by the Government and the complainant may not be able to collect the documents and file the complaint in such a situation.  On perusal of Section 69(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it reads thus:-

 

69. (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

 

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

 

On the strength of the above provision of Law the complainant assigned the reason during pandemic days he is not able to file the complaint and the reason is accepted by us and thereon delay in filing the complaint is hereby condoned.  Accordingly we answered Point No.1 is in the Negative.

 

12.   POINT NOs. (2) & (3):-     The above points are interlinked to each other and hence taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of the facts and for convenience.

 

13.   In order to prove the case of the complainant and the OP No.1 – Bank both parties have filed their affidavit evidences.  On perusal of the complaint and the affidavit evidence the complainant has retreated all the facts narrated in the complaint in his affidavit evidence.  It is the specific case of the complainant that, on 06.04.2019 he received unknown calls from the unknown persons and thereby he cut-down the calls.  The main allegation of the complainant is that, when he went to OP No.1 – Bank for pass-book entry, he came to know that, some unknown persons have withdrawn the amount from his account and thereon he lodged complaint with the OP No.1 Bank and to the jurisdictional police.  Further alleged that, the OP No.1 – Bank has acted negligently without adhering to the banking norms.

14.   The counsel for OP No.1 – Bank vehemently argued that, once the Bank issued any ATM card or for any online transaction, Bank will securely give OTP number for any online transactions or for net banking and it shall be intimated to the customer only and not to any other persons, if the said OTP is revealed to some other persons, it will leads to fraudulent activities and the complainant might have revealed the said OTP number to any unknown persons that will leads to the alleged incident.  It is worth to note that, the complainant in his pleadings at Para-4 of his complaint averments it is clearly admitted that, on 06.04.2019 the complainant has received the phone calls from the unknown numbers i.e., from 8695393569 and 8250897356 at about 10.00 AM and this admission clearly goes to demonstrate that, the stand taken by the OP No.1 – Bank to certain extent may be true that complainant might have revealed the OTP number to any unknown person.  Secondly the complainant himself has stated that, when on 06.04.2019 when he cut-down the phone calls of unknown numbers, why he failed to immediately rushed to his Bank and enquired about the phone calls, but the complainant did not given any explanation about the non-approaching to the Bank on the same day.

15.   Furthermore as per the saying of the complainant the incident is occurred on 06.04.2019, but he did not mention the date and time that, when he approached the Bank for pass-book entry and lodged the complaint with the Bank.  Whereas on perusing the Annexure-02 it reveals that, on 12.04.2019 the complainant given the petition regarding withdrawal of the amount from his account and sought for re-credit of the same.  Further the Annexure-02 clearly reveals that, the complainant has belatedly approached after a week time to the Bank to lodge the complaint and it shows that, the complainant himself is not diligent in pursuing his own cause. 

16.   Furthermore on perusal of Annexure-03 & 4 the complainant also lodged complaint on 12.04.2019 and the jurisdictional police have registered the FIR against the unknown persons, but till today the complainant not placed any record about the progress of the investigation. On the basis of the discussion we reached to conclusion   that  the complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of Ops  and accordingly we answered Point Nos.(2) & (3) are in the Negative.

POINT (4):-

17.   On the basis of the reasons assigned while answering Points Nos. (1) to (3) we proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

 

ORDER

01.   The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 21^st DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

 

LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT