The case is filed as per Consumer Protection Act  1986 at DCDRC, Barasat that was transferred to ADCDRC, Rajarhat.

As per factum of this Consumer Complaint filed u/S 35(1) of Consumer Protection Act 2019,thecomplaint is lodged by Ms. Rangana Banerjee nee Mukherjee of 1050/1 Survey Park, Kolkata 700075against OP1 and OP2 of Bajaj Finservice and State Bank of India, OP3 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and aiding to unauthorised deductions for alleged fraudulent actdue to OPsfor the total unauthorised deducted amounts from her account at SBI, Mukundapur. The complainant prays for refund of said amount from OP1 and OP2 Financial service company alongwitha compensation of Rs3,00,000/- for mental harassment and a litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

The brief fact as averred by thecomplainant is that being a bonafide customer of OP1 /OP2 private finance company, took loan for purchasing consumer durables and used to repay loan through EMI from her account maintained at SBI,Mukundapur. As averred by her the last loan was taken from here on 16.04.2017 which got completely paid off on 02.02.2018 as confirmed in their W/V by OP1/OP2 (Para C). On 28.01.2018, she allegedly received an OTP in mobile and also a message against some loan account no 410CDD66578524Having not purchased any material under such reference no. or having not shared any OTP with anybody, the complainant overlooked the same. But subsequently complainant was shocked to discover that some unauthorised deductions from her bank account took place when monthly deductions @ Rs. 1438/- each on 03.04.2018 and 02.05.2018 took place from her said SBI account.

Thecomplainant further states that uponapproaching customer service department of OP1/OP2 by email did not get reply. But after few days the OP1/OP2 replied by attaching loan account statement from which it became apparent that, 2 nos. of new loan accounts have been opend in her name.The complainant lodged a police complaint vide General Diary Entry no. 861 dated 09.07.2028 at local PS. Complainant also visited the OP1/OP2 offices but did not get cooperation. However after long pursuations vide email dated 14.08.2018, complainant got response stating that refund was made by OP1/OP2 company for the said deducted amount and credited back to her account. On 23.11.2018 complainant received legal notice from OP1/OP2 claiming outstanding amount of Rs. 7050/- arising out of her original loan account no. 4100VS66578186 as well as lowering of CIBIL score.

From the W/V by OP1/OP2 company M/S Bajaj FinserviceLtd. it is quite apparent that it is their admitted position that they become aware about the opening of another loan account at their company in the name of the complainant without her knowledge and without her sharing any OTP… The OP1/OP2 company accepted in Evidence with Affidavit that the said account had been closed and no more liability shall accrue over her account. It was also averred that the complainant had no outstanding in her existing account whatsoever that had been fully paid off.. The OP1/OP company also  exhibited a No objection certificate issued in favour of the complainant to prove their bonafide.

The OP1/OP2 contemplated that the main issues involved in this complaint are centeringaroundthose relating to wrongful usage of the KYC document of the complainant leading to alleged cheating and fraud,may be including cyber crime.Police complaint has been filed by complainant. Without trial, it is difficult to find out whether any fraud or unauthorized transaction took place unless the outsiders or fraudstars or representatives of bank or financial institution compromises on personal identification parameters inadvertently or otherwise. Also such frauds may occur through various means like clicking on links received through phishing mails or links received in whatsapp which can auto-read the log in Id, passwords or other personal details like date of birth, grid card values, mothers maiden name etc. or through desk tops, infected with Malwares etc.

In this respect, attention is drawn to the Judgement dated 17.12. 2019 by the National Commission in the Consumer Complaint No.76 of 2011 wherein relevant para No.16 & 17 which reads as under :

“16.    From the above judgments, it is brought out that complaint case where forgery and fraud has been alleged by one party against the other party and the same is denied by the other party cannot be decided in a summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because it requires lot of voluminous evidence to be produced by both the parties in support of their assertions, which is not possible in the summary proceedings.  Proper forum for adjudication of such complaints is only the Civil Court having proper jurisdiction.

17.    Based on the above discussion, this complaint cannot be decided under the summary procedure laid down in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it would require voluminous evidence to be produced by both the parties in support of their assertions.  The proper forum for the present complaint would be the civil court of appropriate jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the CC No.76 of 2011 is dismissed.  However, the liberty is granted to the complainant to approach the Civil Court of proper jurisdiction for seeking relief in the matter, if so advised.”

Attention is also drawn to a similar consumer complaint and theJudgement dated 03.01.2022 by the National Commission in the Consumer Complaint No.767 of 2011 in the matter of Manisha SohilkumarShovatiya Vs HDFC Bank &Ors. wherein it is held that :-

“This Commission is not the appropriate forum to decide on matters like this. In such a situation, the issue of deficiency of service as stated by the Complainant on the part of the OP No.1 & OP No.2 is not relevant at this stage.  Further, whether certain bank officials colluded alongwith OP No.3 is once again a matter of detailed investigation.  Since, the husband of the Complainant has filed FIR in the matter in 2019, it is expected that the police would carry out the necessary investigation:

The Judgement in respect of theConsumer case cited by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant in the Appeal petition at National Commission, New Delhi in the matter of Punjab National Bank Vs Leader Valves Ltd. in Appeal no. 112 of 2015 against Order of 2014 in complaint case no. 45 of 2010 was examined threadbare. It is found that the cited complaint relates to a complainant of original case who maintained cash credit facility from OP bank and out of their 3 accounts of various nature, they were entitled to operate only 1 account with user Id and password, whereas the other 2 accounts were under exclusive control of bank. The alleged wrongful debit from customer account was done by debiting their C/c book debit account for which the complainant had no functional control. Moreover the debited amount was credited to another account of the same bankwhich is solely under bank’s control. This is not a case herein. Hence it is crystal clear that the contention of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant can not be factored in, into the case in hand, in a straight jacket manner.

It is fully agreed with the abovesaid Judgements of Hon’ble National Commisioninter alia that since this complaint case brings out cyber crime and fraud by one party against the other, such dispute cannot be adjudicated in a summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act because it requires lot of voluminous evidence to be produced by both the parties in support of their averrments, which is next to impossible in the summary proceedings. Proper forum for adjudication of such complaints is only the Civil Court having proper jurisdiction. Hence this complaint case requires a detailed investigation in view of the grains of forgery, cheating, cyber crime etc. being involvedand FIR lodged. This Commission is not the appropriate forum to decide on matters like this with scopes of summary proceedings. In such a situation, the issue of deficiency of service as stated by the complainant on the part of the financial institution or banks is not relevant at this stage. Further, whocontributed to aiding and abetingsuch unauthorised transactions, as alleged by complainant,  is once again a matter of detailed investigation.  Since, the Complainant has filed General Diary in this matter, it is expected that the police would carry out the necessary investigation based on outcome of which only, extent of damage can be ascertained, if proved.

In view of the forgoing discussion there can not be any order at this stage.

Hence, the complaint case is disposed of without any order.