Tripura

StateCommission

A/61/2023

PINAKI DASGUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. P. DEB, MR. D. DEBNATH, MR. K.S. SARMA

12 Jul 2024

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Agartala: West Tripura

Case No. A. 61 of 2023

 

 

1. Sri Pinaki Dasgupta, 

S/o Late Debendra Chandra Dasgupta,

Resident of Indranagar, Agartala,

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

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799007.

.… … … … Appellant/Complainant

Vs

1. Union Bank of India, Head Office,

Represented by its General Manager, 

239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg,

Nariman Point, Mumbai- 21.

 

2. Union Bank of India,

G.B. Bazar Branch, ITI Road, Agartala,

P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. N.C.C., Pin - 799006.

                                                … … … … Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

Before

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh

President

State Commission

 

Smt. Daliya Saha

Member, State Commission

 

Shri Jhantu Debnath

Member, State Commission

 

 

 

 

Present:

For the Appellant:                                                Mr. Diptanu Debnath, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                           Mr. Prabir Saha, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:             12.07.2024.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, District Commission), West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.C.C.09 of 2023.

2. The case of the appellant-complainant is that he had an account with Union Bank of India (in short, Bank), the respondent herein. On 02.08.2021, his account was hacked and hackers withdraw a total sum of Rs.10,000/- in two transactions. As soon as he received the message of such unauthorized transactions, he rushed to the Bank and informed that there were unauthorized transactions through his account. The Bank people advised him to register a complaint. Accordingly, he rushed to the Police Station and recorded a G.D. Entry. Along with the copy of the G.D. Entry and the number herein, he again returned to the Bank Officials to do the needful and on the next day, he requested the Bank Authority to refund the said amount, but the Bank people did not refund.
3. Feeling aggrieved, he approached the learned District Commission for his redress.
4. After the filing of the complaint, learned District Commission issued notice upon the respondent-Bank. On receipt of notice, the respondent-Bank contested the complaint and denied the allegations leveled against them.
5. It is the case of the respondent-Bank that the complainant himself was responsible and liable for those two unauthorized transactions. As such, they repudiated the claim of refund made by the appellant-complainant.
6. Having heard the learned counsel and on consideration of the evidence on record, the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint made by the complainant and held that the complainant was not entitled to get the refund of the amount he claimed in the complaint petition.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned District Commission, the appellant-complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
8. We have heard Mr. Diptanu Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant and Mr. Prabir Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-opposite parties, Union Bank of India.
9. Before this Commission Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant has argued that he did not receive any OTP when those two unauthorized transactions were transacted by the hackers. It was not that he shared the OTP with any one as alleged by the Bank.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has submitted that unless and until OTP is shared, the hackers would not be in a position to withdraw any amount from the account of the complainant. It is further argued that the statements of accounts during that period issued by the Bank, it is revealed that the appellant-complainant had placed order to purchase some articles from Amazon Company which submission is strongly opposed by the complainant. According to the complainant, he never placed any order to Amazon Company for purchasing of any article. It is further argued that Rs.10/- was first transacted in the account of the appellant-complainant, but the appellant-complainant did not take any steps to stop such unauthorized transactions when he found that Rs.10/- was withdrawn from his account by the hackers. In reply to this submission, Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant has submitted that the appellant had not noticed that Rs.10/- was transacted through his account. He even did not receive any OTP for such transactions.
11. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. According to us, it is the solemn obligation of the Bank and its officials that whenever any information or complaint is lodged to it about hacking of account, then and then they should block and refund the amount to the customer/consumer. What the Bank people did, in the instant case, was that they advised the complainant to make a G.D. Entry with the local Police Station. Accordingly, the appellant-complainant made the G.D. Entry and placed it before the respondent-Bank on the very next date with a request to refund of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant-complainant, but they did not refund. It was further requested by the appellant-complainant to enquire about the matter how his account was transacted or hacked by the people concerned.
12. We have noticed that the Bank people did not adduce any evidence that they ever inquired the fact which was alleged by the appellant-complainant. In that case, according to us, the respondent-Bank was definitely deficient to provide appropriate and adequate service a customer expects from the Bank.
13. We have perused the findings recorded by the learned District Commission. According to us, the learned District Commission failed to consider the fact that the appellant-complainant had rushed to the Bank as soon as he found that two unauthorized transactions were made through his account. Further, despite G.D. Entry made by the appellant-complainant, the respondent-Bank did not refund the amount which, according to us, is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-opposite party, Bank.
14. For the reasons stated and discussed here-in-above, we direct the respondent-Bank to refund Rs.10,000/- to the complaint-appellant within a period of three weeks from today. Since, we have held that the respondent-Bank was found to be deficient in providing appropriate and adequate service to its customer like the appellant-complainant, we direct the respondent-Bank to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant-complainant along with a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- has been imposed upon the respondent-Bank to be payable to the appellant-complainant within a period three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant is directed to place a copy of this order to the respondent-Bank as soon as he receives certified copy of the same. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank is also requested to place the copy of this order to the Bank to ensure the payment within the period as indicated here-in-above.
15. It is made clear that if the total amount as awarded by this Commission is not paid within the stipulated period of three weeks, then the respondent-Bank shall be liable to pay interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint petition before the learned District Commission.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant appeal stands allowed and disposed of.