CC No.840.2015

Filed on 29.04.2015

Disposed on 26.10.2016

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.840/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

PRESENT:

     Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

              PRESIDENT

                        Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                                 MEMBER

                                          V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 19.08.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.19997/-, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant holding Savings Bank Account bearing No.561010100022570 with the Opposite Party Bank.  On 05.01.2015 the Complainant received text messages to his mobile phone containing information that Rs.9999/- and another amount of Rs.9998/- has been debited from the account of the Complainant.   In fact, the Complainant had not made such transaction.   The Complainant immediately went to the Opposite Party-Bank informed regarding illegal debit of amount of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/- from the account of the Complainant and thereby requested for blocking of ATM card and Bank account.  Since the Opposite Party has not taken any steps for credit to his account of amount of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/- even after lapse of eight days on 14.01.2015 the Complainant lodged to the Opposite Party.  On 12.01.2015 the Complainant also lodged a complaint with Amruthahalli Police Station.  On 20.04.2015 the Opposite Party issued an endorsement that “Dispute rejected by the acquiring Bank, case closed”.  The Complainant has not at all used the ATM card on the said date at Bombay.  The said debiting of amount from the account of the Complainant is an act of theft, which is due to technical security defect with the Opposite Party.  The said act of the Opposite Party is a clear case of deficiency of service.  The Complainant is entitled to a total sum of Rs.39997/-. 

Hence this complaint.  

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  In the version pleaded that the Complainant has no locus-standi either to file the complaint against the Opposite Party.  The Complainant has alleged fraud and cheating, which is not a consumer dispute.  Moreover he was himself negligent in sharing the credentials of the account with unknown person and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant has also filed Police complaint and the matter is under pending police investigation.  In view of the above, the dispute is forgery and the same requires a thorough police investigation, the matter lies outside the purview of Consumer Forum.  The Opposite Party is a scheduled Bank, incorporated under Companies Act 1956.  The Complainant is having account bearing No.561010100022570 with Opposite Party Bank he had lodged complaint on 14.01.2015 regarding alleged two online transactions dt.05.01.2015 for Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/-.  On receipt of the said complaint, the Opposite Party forwarded the said complaint to CCRS vide complaint Id 1501004679 dt.05.01.2015 for verification and however, the Opposite Party received the reply from the concerned department of CCRS on 12.01.2015 stating that “the said transactions were successful and the commercial transaction done by entering user ID and password available only with the card holder.   The transaction has been successfully claimed by the merchant acquiring Bank.  Since it has been done in secure environment with UCSF 212 there are no dispute rights and cardholder is liable to pay he charges”. 

4. Immediately thereafter the Opposite Party has communicated to the Complainant on 12.01.2015.  The following transaction details:

Amount                       :         Rs.9998.00 & 9999.00

Place of transactions :         www.mobikwik.com Plaza

                                         Asia Mumbai 400054, India

Auth code                   :         012618 and 011933

Txn type                      :         Purchase (Goods and Services)

Status                         :         First Presentment

ACQ ID                       :         002531

RECON ID                  :         84727753 and 84727484   

Txn. Category             :         OFFUS

Ucaf Ind                      :         212

Bank Name                :         Citi Bank

5. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and there is no cause of action.    All the online transactions through Internet Banking facility meet all the stringent safety and security criteria specified by International Associations VISA and master Card.  Online transaction done by the Complainant by entering user ID and Password available only with the account holder.  On 05.01.2015 the Complainant had made the aforesaid transactions or the Complainant has divulged his user ID and password which is known only to himto some third party and which may have facilitated the alleged unauthorized transaction in his account. There is no financial loss caused to the Complainant.  Hence, there is no liability of whatsoever nature.  Hence this Opposite Party Bank is not liable to pay Rs.39,997/- as alleged by the Complainant.  Hence prays to dismissal of the complaint.

6.      The Complainant, Mr.Amaresh has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party, the affidavit of one Madhusudhana R. S, working as Asst.Vice President has been filed.  Heard the arguments of both parties.

7.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

8.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Negative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

9.   POINT NO.1:- As looking into the allegations made in the complaint and in the version of the Opposite Party it is not in dispute that the Complainant is having S.B.Account No.561010100022570.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the Pass Book.  As looking into this document, it is clearly reveals that the Complainant is having S.B.Account  with the Opposite Party-Bank bearing S.B. Account No.561010100022570.

10. It is further allegation of the Complainant that on 05.01.2015 the Complainant received text messages to his mobile phone containing information that Rs.9999/- and another amount of Rs.9998/-  has been debited from the Account of the Complainant.  In fact no such transaction made by the Complainant.  The Complainant immediately went to the Opposite Party-Bank informed regarding illegal debit amount of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/-from the account of the Complainant and requested for blocking of ATM card and Bank Account.  Since, the Opposite Party-Bank has not taken any steps for credit to his account for a sum of Rs.9999/-and Rs.9998/- even after lapse of eight days the Complainant filed Written complaint to the Opposite Party on 14.01.2015 and also lodged a complaint with Amruthahalli Police Station on 12.01.2015.  On 20.04.2015 the Opposite Party Bank issued an endorsement stating that “Dispute rejected by the acquiring Bank, case closed”.  In support of this contention, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced copy of the complaint it is dt.14.01.2015 and it is addressed to the Manager of the Opposite Party-Bank by the Complainant and in the complaint it clearly mentioned that on 05.01.2015 by online transaction for a sum of Rs.9999/-and Rs.9998/- were debited from his S.B.Account No.561010100022570 within a span of time and he received the text message, to that extent and also produced copy of the complaint filed Sub Inspector of Policy, Amruthahalli Police Station.  On the basis of this complaint, Amruthahalli Police registered a case and also produced the endorsement.  As looking into this endorsement, it is dt.24.04.2015 and in this endorsement it clearly mentioned that the dispute is rejected by the acquiring Bank and case closed.  This evidence of the Complainant is not been challenged by the Opposite Party-Bank.  So from this evidence, it is very clear that the Complainant after receiving the text message on 05.01.2015 about debit of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/- from his S.B.Account, he approached the Opposite Party-Bank and lodged the complaint with the Bank as well as the Police, but Opposite Party-Bank after enquiry they issued endorsement dispute rejected and case is closed. 

11. The defence of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party-Bank on 14.01.2015 received a complaint alleging two online transactions dt.05.01.2015 for a sum of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/- from the S.B.Account No.561010100022570 of the Complainant.   On receipt of the said complaint, the Opposite Party-Bank forwarded the said complaint to CCRS vide complaint Id No.1501-004679  for verification and however, the Opposite Party-Bank received the reply from the concerned Department of Customer complaint Resolution Software stating that “the said transactions were successful and the commercial transaction done by entering user ID and password available only with the card holder.   The transaction has been successfully claimed by the merchant acquiring Bank.  Since it has been done in secure environment with UCSF 212 there are no dispute rights and cardholder is liable to pay he charges”.  To substantiate this defence,  on behalf of the Opposite Party-Bank, one R.S.Madhusudhana, Assistant Vice President of the Opposite Party-Bank filed his affidavit and his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and also produced the Customer Complaint form.  As looking into this document, as soon as the Opposite Party-Bank received the complaint from the Complainant registered No.1509-004679.  This complaint is with regard to ATM Transactions with respect to the ATM Card bearing No.5327020203302107, the said transaction is online purchase.  On enquiry of this complaint, closed the disputed TXN mentioned is a successful ECOMM Txn done by entering user ID and Password available only with the cardholder and it was informed to the Complainant.  This evidence of the Opposite Party-Bank also remains unchallenged, thereby, to disbelieve the evidence of R.S.Madhusudhana, there is contra evidence.

12. The learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that the Complainant has not transacted i.e., ATM Card on 05.01.2015, even though he has not transacted in transaction but he received a text message informing that a sum of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/- has been debited from his S.B.Account.  Immediately, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party-Bank and brought to the notice, but they issued endorsement only on 14.01.2015 that the case was closed.  So this clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank.  Since, even though the Complainant had not transacted with his ATM.  But there is illegal debit of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/-, thereby, the Complainant is entitled for reliefs has claimed in this complaint.  On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-Bank argued that the alleged sum of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/- debiting from the S.B. Account of the Complainant is regarding the online transaction without clearing the user ID and password, there was no possibility of online transaction so card holder only know the user I.D and password, thereby the alleged transaction is within the knowledge of the Complainant and the said transaction was successful.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Since the Complainant made online transaction and purchased some articles due to that reason there was a debit of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/- from the account of the Complainant.  Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

13. With this argument and on perusal of the evidence, it is undisputed fact that there was debited of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/- on 05.01.2015 from the S.B.Account No.561010100022570 of the Complainant.  The Complainant lodged a complaint with the Opposite Party-Bank without any transaction illegally there is a debit of Rs.9999/- and Rs.9998/- from his account and on enquiry by the Opposite Party-Bank it is clear that the transaction used by through online purchase.  So in the online transaction one who have known the user Id and password without user Id and password no online transaction will be successful, thereby the said transaction was successful transaction and cardholder is liable to pay the charges and thereby case was closed after due enquiry.  So without knowing the Id and password no online transaction is possible, thereby, the said transaction was made by the Complainant and it is successful.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank.  Hence, the Complainant fails to prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank.  Therefore, I answer point No.1 is held in the Negative. 

14. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the party. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 26^th day of October 2016)

      MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Amaresh, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Original Bank Pass Book
2. Original Complaint copy addressed to the Opposite Party
3. Original Police complaint
4. Original Acknowledgement
5. Original Endorsement issued by Opposite Party
6. Original Account Statement issued by Opposite Party.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

1. Sri.Madhusudhana R.S, on behalf of the Opposite Party by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

1. Copies of Customer Complaint Form

       MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT