DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 70 of 2021.

 

Sri Pinaki Dasgupta,

S/O. Lt. Debendra Ch. Dasgupta,

Resident of:-Village Indranagar, 

P.O.-Indranagar, Agartala, P.S.-East Agartala,

Dist.- West Tripura, Pin-799005....…..........................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Union Bank of India, Head Office

Represented by its General Manager,

Office at-239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg,

Nariman Point, Mumbai-21.

 

2. Union Bank of India,

G.B. Bazar Branch,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Office at-G.B. Bazar, ITI Road, Agartala,

P.S.-East Agartala, P.O.-G.B. Bazar...................... 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,

  Shri Kumar Sankar Sarma,

  Advocates. 

For the O.P. Nos. I & .2 : Shri Sujit Kr. Banerjee,

  Advocate.    

                                                                                                                             

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 22/08/2022.

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant Sri Pinaki Dasgupta, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 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.571602010002818 with the  O.P. No.2, the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, G.B. Bazar Branch, Agartala. The Complainant being a customer of Union Bank applied in his Branch office for availing a debit card facility and accordingly on the application of the Complainant the O.P. Bank issued one debit card in the name of the Complainant vide No.6521635716006861. The Complainant from the date of receiving the aforesaid ATM Card(Debit Card) kept the ATM Card in his possession in safe and secured place and only took out by him from the safe custody and every time after using the ATM card the Complainant kept the same back in the safe and secure place under his possession. On 08/10/2020 the Complainant went to the O.P. No.2 for updating his passbook but could not update the same for technical reasons and accordingly asked the staffs of the O.P. Bank No.2 to provide him the transactions details of his S/B A/C. The Complainant could find that from 14/09/2020 upto 18/09/2020 the ATM Card of the Complainant as was issued by the O.P. Bank was unauthorisedly used for making 5 transactions by hacking the ATM Card of the Complainant for purchases at Noida through Paytm without the knowledge of the Complainant. But the following day i.e. on 14/09/2020 to 18/09/2020 he noticed that in five different ATM PUNCH transactions a total amount of Rs.800/- on 14/09/2020, Rs.240/- on 15/09/2020, Rs.1,600/- on 16/09/2020,  Rs.800/- on 17/09/2020 & Rs. 800/- on 18/09/2019 has fraudulently been withdrawn from his account. The Complainant however on receiving the transactions details asked the staffs of the O.P. No.2 for refund of the amount of Rs.2,420/- only as had been unauthorisedly withdrawn from the S.B A/C of the Complainant by hacking the ATM Card of the Complainant about which the Complainant had no knowledge until receiving the transaction details from the O.P. No.2 generated from its computer system. The Complainant accordingly on 14/10/2020 made a G.D. Entry in the GBP Out Post about the unauthorised transactions made by hacking the ATM Card of the Complainant vide G.D. Entry No.12, dated 14/10/2020 and a copy of the G.D. Entry supplied to the O.P. No.2 as per requirement of the O.P. Bank to do the needful for making refund of the money Rs.2,420/- to the Complainant. The O.P. Bank on realizing that the ATM Card of the Complainant was hacked blocked the ATM Card of the Complainant. The O.P. Bank asked the Complainant to wait for some days as they would send the matter to the Head Office for doing the needful for initiating the refund but till filing of the present complaint case the O.P. Bank has not yet refunded the said amount of Rs.2,420/- that has been unauthorisedly withdrawn from the S/B. A/C. Of the Complainant.  

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the services of the O.Ps. the complainant filed the complaint praying for compensation and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/- on account of mental agony hardship suffered by him and also for direction upon the O.Ps. to refund Rs.2,420/- 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.2,420/- 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.   In the instant case the complainant informed the Bank regarding the alleged fraudulent transactions, which took place from 14/09/2020 to 18/09/2020 only after 5 days from the date of the withdrawal of money. Thereafter, the complainant has reportedly lodged a FIR on 14/10/2020 to the GBP Out Post having G.D. Entry No.12 dated 14/10/2020. Hence the grievance of Complainant against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency and negligence in service is not at all sustainable against the O.Ps. 

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

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

    No evidence is adduced by the Complainant. No document is exhibited from the side of the Complainant. 

On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Sudip Banik, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, G.B. Bazar Branch, Agartala has been examined. He has produced 01 documents comprising 1 sheet under a Firisti dated 19/07/2022. The document is Photo Copy of Bank Statement and it is marked as Exhibit-A.    

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 O.Ps. only the following points are 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 Mr. K. S. Sarma submitted that Complainant had no knowledge about the transaction which was done by hacking. He also submitted that Complainant never shared any OTP to anybody and he admitted that transaction was made through Paytm and burden lies upon the O.P. to show that OTP was shared. 

    On the other hand Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted that Complainant failed to adduce any evidence in support of the complaint and without any evidence Commission could not decide in favour of the Complainant. He further submitted that Exhibit-A the Bank Statement shows that transaction were made through Paytm and without sharing OTP Paytm transaction could not be done and he submitted 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 evidence adduced from the side of the O.P. only. 

      Inspite of having sufficient scope Complainant failed to adduce any evidence. Rather O.P. adduced their evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant submitted examination-in-chief on affidavit of one PW at belated stage and it was not accepted.  

      From the evidence of the DW-1 we find that Bank regularly used to sent SMS of the Bank Customers from the Auto Generate System, that not to share the “Date of Birth, Aadhaar Number, OTP, PIN & CVV Number”, in any way to unknown persons. It is deposed that Complainant has shared the Secrete PIN Code Number as well as ATM Card Number, by which, the hacker party withdrew the said amount through Paytm System. 

7.          In the instant case Complainant failed to adduce any evidence. There is a complaint petition only and without adducing any evidence complaint has no value. 

          On the other hand we find that O.P. Bank adduced sufficient evidence in support of their denial and also defense. Hence, we hold that Complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed and no cost. 

    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.