DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 63 of 2020.

 

Sri Abhijit Debbarma,

S/O. Lt. Ram Mohan Debbarma,

Resident of -Nutan Pally, Krishnanagar, Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura.

Presently residing at: 

Mission Compound, A.D. Nagar,

P.O. & P.S. - A.D. Nagar,

Dist.-Tripura West, Pin-799003....…..........................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Federal Bank Ltd., Agartala Branch.

Represented by-

The Branch Manager of the Federal Bank, Agartala Branch,

Premise No.824, Jagannath Bari Road, 

Behind Jagannath Temple, P.O.-Agartala,

P.S.-West Agartala, Dist.-Tripura West, Pin-799001.

 

2. The Federal Bank Ltd., Registered Head Office,

Represented by-

The General Manager of the Head Office of the Federal Bank Ltd.

P. B. No.103, Federal Towers, Aluva-683101, 

Kerala, India …............................................................ Opposite parties.

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Shri Diptunu Debnath,

  Advocate. 

For the O.P. No. I & O.P. No.2 : Shri Loknath Datta,

Advocate.    

                                                                                                                             

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 15/09/2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant Sri Abhijit Debbarma, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case in brief is that the Complainant has one Savings Bank account bearing No.19650100000984 with the  O.P. No.1, the Branch Manager, Federal Bank, Agartala Branch. The Complainant obtained one ATM Card from the O.P. Federal Bank for the purpose of withdrawal of money from his account by using the said ATM Card. But the following day i.e. on 20/07/2021 he noticed that in six different ATM PUNCH transactions a total amount of Rs.5,000/- on 12/09/2019, Rs.50,000/- on 13/09/2019, Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-) on 16/09/2019,  Rs.50,000/- on 17/09/2019, Rs. 50,000/- on 18/09/2019 & Rs.3,000/- on 19/09/2019 has fraudulently been withdrawn from his account. He immediately informed the matter to the O.P. No.1, the Branch Manager, Federal Bank, Agartala Branch, Agartala. The Complainant made the application on 06/12/2019 to the O.P. No.1 Federal Bank or in the police complaint dated 09/12/2019 about the matter for taking needful action. The O.P. has furnished to the complainant details of the transactions made                                                                                                                                                                                   from the account of the Complainant and O.P. Bank has also                                                                           stated that they are unable to refund the amount due to limiting liability. The complainant alleged that the O.P. Bank has                                                                                                not refunded the amount Rs.2,53,000/- and also Rs.5,000/- which has been fraudulently withdrawn from the account of the Complainant and that the O.P. Bank has also failed to furnish details of the information as to how and where the transactions had occurred.  

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the services of the O.Ps. the complainant filed the complaint praying for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony hardship suffered by him and also for direction upon the O.Ps. to refund Rs.2,58,000/- which has been fraudulently withdrawn from his account.

Hence this case. 

 

2. The O.Ps. has contested the case by filing a written statement denying any deficiency of service having been committed by them towards the Complainant. Regarding the alleged withdrawals for an amount of Rs.2,58,000/- from the account of the complainant, the O.P. has asserted that the withdrawals were made on account of disclosure of secret Paytm Wallet Password, Credit / Debit Card PIN and any other confidential information by the Complainant. The O.P. can not be held responsible for the alleged fraudulent withdrawals from the savings bank account of the Complainant. The O.P. Bank has supplied to the Complainant the details of the transactions as sought for by the Complainant and that the O.P. has also informed the Complainant that they were unable to refund the amount as the matter has not been dealt with by the O.P. Branch,  Agartala.   As  per  RBI /2017-18 /15DBR. No. Leg. BC. 78/09.07.005/2017-18 on 'Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions', the liability of the customer will be lifted in case of an unauthorised transaction only when the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised transaction. In the instant case the complainant informed the Bank regarding the alleged fraudulent transactions, which took place from 12/09/2019 to 19/09/2019 only after 75 days from the date of the withdrawal of money. Thereafter, the complainant has reportedly lodged a FIR on 14/12/2019 to the West Agartala Police Station having case No.2019 WAG 342 under Section 420 Indian penal Code and the case is under investigation. Hence the grievance of Complainant against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency and negligence in service is not at all sustainable against the O.Ps. It is surprising to note that the Complainant came to know about the alleged unauthorised withdrawal of money from his account only on 20/07/2020. It is vehemently denied that the Complainant noticed the withdrawal of money only on 20/07/2020, as the said statement is totally false. 

The O.Ps. has thus prayed for dismissal of the Complaint for the interests of justice. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

    The Complainant examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 08 documents comprising 15 sheets under a Firisti dated 04/09/2020 & 26/03/2021. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series. The Complainant was not cross examined by O.Ps. side as it is a summary trial. 

On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Shri Subhra Santa Sen, Branch Manager, Federal Bank, Agartala Branch, Agartala has been examined. He has produced 02 documents comprising 10 sheets under a Firisti dated 10/02/2021. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – A Series. The witness was not cross examined by the Complainant side as it is a summary trial.    

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:

Based on the contentions raised by both the parties in their pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant the following points cropped up for determination:

(I).   Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.?

(II). Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/relief as prayed for?

 

5.   ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES:

      We have heard arguments from both sides. At the time of argument, Learned Counsel of the Complainant submitted that the Complainant obtained one ATM-CUM-DEBIT Card from the O.P. Bank for the purpose of withdrawal of money of his account by using said ATM Card. But on 20/07/2021 he noticed that from different places on different dates starting from 12/09/2019 to 19/09/2019 in total Rs.2,58,000/- only was withdrawn by hacking unauthorizedly from his account. The matter was informed to the O.P. Bank but they did not make any response. Learned Counsel further submitted that Complainant was staying at Guwahati in his Daughter's matrimonial home for the purpose of medical check-up at the relevant time. He further submitted that for unauthorized withdrawal of the money Complainant had no latches on his part but it was the latches on the part of the O.P. So, Complaint is entitled to get the refund of the entire amount along with interest and also compensation from O.P. In support of his argument he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble State Commission which is delivered in Appeal No.A.4 of 2021. He also relied upon a decision of the Kerala High Court passed in RSA.No.1087 of 2018 dated 09/01/2019. He also relied upon another decision of the National Commission in a case No. Revision Petition No.4868/2012 date of judgment 08/02/2015. 

    On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. Loknath Datta submitted that the Complainant delayed to inform the Bank about unauthorized transaction. He further submitted that the Complainant is put to strict proof as to the possession of the ATM Card throughout with him and he did not disclose the PIN NO. to anybody. The Complainant had not informed the Branch even after noticing low balance in his account and Complaint was lodged with the Branch only after 75 days. He further submitted that as per RBI Guideline customer has to register the complaint with the Bank within 3 days for full refund but Complainant has failed to discharge his duties. So, Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed  for and the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.                                                                                                                                          

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

Both points are taken up together for the convenience. 

    We have carefully gone through the complaint as well as written statement and evidences adduced by the parties including exhibited documents. 

      On perusal of the complaint it is revealed that Complainant had lost in total Rs.2,58,000/- from his Savings Bank account bearing No.19650100000984 with the  O.P. No.1, the Branch Manager, Federal Bank, Agartala Branch. Complainant has mentioned details account given in a table of the complaint petition about the loss of total amount on different dates and places. Complainant in his examination-in-chief reiterated the same facts which are mentioned in his complaint. So, we are not reproducing the same in our judgment. At Para 9 of his evidence he stated that on 09/12/2019 he collected the printout copy of transaction details of his SB Account for the period of 01/09/2019 to 08/12/2019 from the Office of the O.P. No.1 for the purpose of making police complaint as suggested by the staff of the O.P. No.1 and accordingly, he made a written complaint to the O/C, In-charge West Tripura Agartala, P.S. along with relevant documents. Written complaint was registered as West Agartala P.S. Case No.2019/WAG 342. The Complainant accordingly informed the O.P. No.1 about the particulars of the police case. Complainant also in his evidence stated that in the month of July, 2020 he received a copy of a letter from the end of the O.P. No.1 dated 10/07/2020 and he was informed that as per limiting liability policy of the Bank Complainant is not eligible for refund and Complainant also adduced documentary evidence in support of his claim.   

            On the other hand DW namely Sri Subhra Santa Sen, Branch Manager, Federal Bank, Agartala Branch in his evidence stated that as per RBI Guideline the customer has to inform the Bank within 3 working days of receiving the communication from the Bank regarding the unauthorized transaction. The witness further stated that the Complainant did not inform the Branch even after noticing the low balance and complaint was lodged with the Branch only after 75 days. So, Bank is not liable. 

        We have gone through the citations relied upon by the Counsel of the Complainant. We found that the Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a similar case upheld the judgment passed by this District Commission in CC-54 of 2020 where by and where-under this Commission allowed the complaint petition directing the O.Ps. to refund the unauthorized withdrawal of money by hacking. The Hon'ble National Commission also in a case held that “As the money has been wrongly withdrawn from the account of the petitioner / Complainant, the O.P. bank who are in banking business and earning profit out of it are liable to make good her loss”. 

               

            The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in another decision held that “the Reserve Bank of India, exercising control over the banks has issued directions to the banks from time to time indicating the various steps to be taken as part of the duties owed by them to their customers. Considering the recent surge in customer grievances relating to unauthorized transactions in the accounts of the customers enjoying electronic banking facilities like ATM-CUM-DEBIT Cards, net banking etc. in circular No.RBI/2017-18/15 dated 06/07/2017. The Reserve Bank of India has directed all  banks, among others, to put in place, appropriate systems and procedures to ensure safety and security of electronic banking transactions carried out by customers.” 

              In the same judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala further held that “the customer shall have no liability at all in the case of third-party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system.” 

 

7.                Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the citations we are in the opinion that Complainant has been able to prove his case U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of deficiency of service by the O.Ps. 

               Hence, it is ordered that the O.Ps. shall make refund the amount of Rs.2,58,000/- to the Savings Bank account bearing No.19650100000984 of the Complainant within 01 month along with interest @6% P.A. from the date on which the said amount was debited to his Savings Account or it is withdrawn from his Savings Account.                         

We also direct the O.Ps. Bank in addition will pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs and failing which the rate of interest will be increased @9% P.A. instead of @6%. 

Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. 

    Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

  Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.