Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This complaint is filed by Principal, DAV Public School, Paschim Medinipur alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for their utter failure to safeguard the money of the Complainant kept in its bank accounts with the OP Bank.

Facts in brief are that the Complainant is having 3 accounts with the OP Bank, viz., School General Fund Account -  A/c No. 553624984, School Pupils Fund Account – A/c No. 553625423 and School Imprest Account – A/c No. 933045930. Withdrawal from the first two accounts could be made through cheque under joint signature of the Principal DAV Public School, Medinipur and Manager/Principal, DAV Model School, IIT, Kharagpur.  In respect of the afore-mentioned third account, Principal, DAV Public School, Medinipur was authorized to operate the same singly.  It is the case of the Complainant that the school never approached the OP Bank for net banking facility in respect of any of the aforesaid three accounts.  However, on 05-09-2014, when the then Principal opened his personal savings account for the purpose of transferring money through net banking, to his utter surprise, he noticed that the 3 accounts of his school got tagged with his personal savings account.  He immediately closed the internet banking site and informed this matter to one of the Accountants of the school.  As he had to go out for an urgent official visit, he decided to report the matter to the bank after his return from said official tour on 12-09-2014.  On 07-09-2014, one of the employees of the school was sent to the bank for updating the passbook.  However, as the printer was out of order, passbook could be printed only on 09-09-2014. On scrutiny of the passbook it was detected that an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was unauthorizedly transferred from the said account.  Therefore, the matter was immediately brought to the notice of the OP Bank on 09-09-2014 itself.  However, the Manager concerned asked the concerned official of the school to visit next day. By the time, official of the Complainant reached the bank next morning, another sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- got transferred from the school account abruptly.  Incidentally, the mobile SIM of the Complainant was blocked on 05-09-2014.  Later on, the Complainant came to know that a duplicate SIM card was issued against his mobile number and the mobile bill was also paid by somebody before the bill was generated on 08-09-2014.  Thereafter, Complainant vide its letter dated 12-09-2014 demanded the money back from the OP Bank, but to no avail.  Hence, the complaint.

OP Nos. 1,2,3 and 6, OP Bank contested the case by filing WV.  Denying all material allegation inter alia, it is stated by these OPs that although the Complainant school never applied for net banking facility, inadvertently the personal CIF of the then Principal of said school got tagged with the school accounts which enabled the Principal to access his school accounts online along with his personal account.  It is pointed out by these OPs that user ID and password of the personal account of the said Principal was used to operate the school accounts which resulted in the situation. These OPs cursed the Principal for not bringing the inadvertent tagging of his personal account with school accounts to the notice of the OP Bank on 05-09-2014 itself when he admittedly noticed such goof up.  According to these OPs, failure and negligence of the then Principal of Complainant school  to rose to the occasion created the whole mess. These OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part.

Case of the OP Nos. 4&5, BSNL, on  the other hand, is that Complainant school took one landline telephone connection from these OPs being no. 03222-263712 and two mobile connections being nos. 9434110596 (prepaid) and 9434340725 (postpaid).  All these connections were taken in the name of ‘the Principal, DAV Public School’.  Although the said connections were taken in the name of the Complainant school, it appears that the then Principal used the mobile connections in his personal capacity.  On or around 04-09-2014, the then Principal, on his way back from Howrah to Kharagpur found that his mobile phone with BSNL post-paid SIM No. 9434340725 got lost and so, he lodged a diary at Kharagpur G.R.P., which was entered as Kharagpur GRP’s GP No. 1091 dated 04-09-2014. Thereafter, the then Principal applied for duplicate SIM which was issued to him on due compliance of necessary formalities.  Subsequently, the then Principal made a request to BSNL to port out the said mobile no. and in consideration of his request and as per TRAI norm, due permission was granted to him and the SIM was ported out from BSNL to Bharti Airtel, but surprisingly transferred in the name of one Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Sinha, who purportedly resided in the same address as that of Mr. Sanjiva Kumar Sinha, the then Principal of the Complainant school. 

The moot point for consideration is whether the Complainant deserves any relief, as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties at length and gone through the material on record carefully.

Admittedly, the Complainant school did not opt for net banking facility in respect of any of its accounts.  Since the gross error on the part of the OP Bank resulted in the entire mess up, there can be no manner of doubt that it was a clear case of gross deficiency on the part of the OP Bank.

Now, the pertinent question arise in view of above findings is whether the OP Bank can be made liable to make good the loss suffered by the Complainant School. On due consideration of the entire spectrum of this case, it seems to us that it would be unfair on our part to put all eggs in the same basket.  Reasons follow.

It seems, mere tagging of an account is not suffice to transfer fund through RTGS/NEFT.  Access to (1) user ID, (2) login password, and (3) one-time password (OTP) is must in order to successfully transfer money through RTGS/NEFT.

If we are to trust the Complainant‘s version as gospel truth, it was sheer coincidence that (1) Mobile No. 9434340725 although stood in the name of the Complainant school, the then Principal gave this number for the purpose of availing of net banking facility in respect of his personal savings account;(2) the miscreant got hold of the official ID Card of the then Principal of the Complainant school; (3) although the then Principal was on an official tour (academic audit) from 05-09-2014 to 09-09-2014 (as stated by the Complainant in its reply under affidavit against the interrogatory put forth by the OP Nos. 4&5), the GD was lodged only on 13-09-2014; (4) the then Principal was in a tearing hurry to go out of station on an official tour on 05-09-2014 for which he could make any phone call to the OP Bank on 05-09-2014 or send his emissary to the bank to rectify the inadvertent linking of school accounts with his personal savings account; (5)  despite noticing illegal transfer of a whooping sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the bank account of the school, no official complaint with the OP Bank or police station was lodged on 09-09-2014 itself when such fraudulent transfer was detected for the first time; (6) although alleged fraud was detected on 09-09-2014, no request was made to the OP Bank on that day itself to block the net banking facility to the savings account of the then Principal; (7) no official complaint was lodged with the BSNL authority although connection to mobile no. 9434340725 went out of order on 05-09-2014, the first complaint was lodged only on 12-09-2014.

Even if the then Principal of the Complainant school is given benefit of doubt in respect of all of the aforesaid aspects, question still survives, how did the unknown miscreant got hold of the user ID and login password that was imperative to access the personal account of the then Principal of the Complainant school and thereupon the accounts of the school.  In absence of due clarification from the side of the then Principal of the Complainant school, the inevitable inference that comes to our mind is that either the then Principal of the Complainant school was the mastermind behind all the fraudulent withdrawals or he compromised the user ID and login password with other(s).  In either case scenario, the then Principal cannot escape his personal liability for the entire goof up.  As a corollary thereof, the Complainant cannot avoid its vicarious liability for the acts and deeds of its employee, i.e., the then Principal, Sri S.K.Sinha.

That said, as noted hereinabove, there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank in safeguarding the money of the Complainant school. Therefore, we hold them liable to pay compensation to the Complainant.

The complaint, accordingly, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The complaint stands allowed on contest against the OP Nos. 1,2,3 and 6 and dismissed against OP Nos. 4&5.  OP Nos. 1,2,3 and 6 shall be jointly and/or severally responsible for payment of a compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant together with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.  In case the decreetal amount is not paid within 45 days hence, such OPs shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the date of filing of this complaint till full and final payment is made.