STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 23.11.2023
Date of final hearing: 05.12.2024
Date of pronouncement: 18.12.2024
First Appeal No.1324 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Canara Bank, Old Railway Road, Gurgaon through its Branch Head and General Power of Attorney Sh. Rajeev Kumar Pandey.
...Appellant
Versus
Dayanand S/o Late Sh. Sheoram, R/o H.No. 40/7, Devi Lal Colony, Gurgaon.
…..Respondent
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Argued by:- Ms. Hemlata Issar, counsel for appellant.
None for respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 76 days in filing of present appeal stand condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, which constitute ‘sufficient cause’ as per Section 5 of Limitation Act.
2. In this appeal No.1324 of 2023; order dated 13.07.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Gurgaon (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.08 of 2023; vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed, has been assailed.
3. Complainant has asserted himself to be senior citizen. On 20.03.2021, when he went to Syndicate Bank, Old Railway Road Branch, Gurugram for cash withdrawal (now merged in Canara Bank-appellant) and submitted cheque amounting to Rs.20,000/-; bank’s cashier informed him that only Rs.33/- is/was lying balance in his account, while as per plea, he was having more than Rs.6.48 lakh in his account on that day. He requested Branch Manager of bank to provide him statement of his account. On its perusal, he came to know that bank fraud of Rs.6,48,000/- had happened, qua his saving bank account, as more than 75 transactions had been found done in his account during period from 20.02.2021 to 06.03.2021. Fraudulent withdrawals from his account had occurred, due to sheer negligence and deficiency in services on the part of OP-bank, because his bank account had not been connected to his mobile number, despite several repeated requests made by him earlier to concerned bank officials. At all times, he was told by dealing hand of bank that bank’s server was down and further that when he complained to concerned Branch Manager for not getting connected his account with his mobile number; latter replied that ‘Rah Gaya Hoga’. It is pleaded that bank was fully responsible for fraudulent withdrawals from his account because of above reason. Had, his account number been connected/linked with his mobile number, then he could have received message on his mobile, regarding fraudulent transactions being done in his account, and, thus could have had immediately stopped fraudulent withdrawals after having come to know about same. He moved application regarding fraud in question to concerned Bank Manager, on next day i.e. on 21.03.2021 but he (Branch Manager) refused to receive his complaint, pursuant to which, he threw his complaint in cabin of Bank Manager; left the bank, and lodged complaint to SHO-Cyber Police Station, Gurugram vide diary receipt No. 1474-5P-11 dated 23.03.2021 for investigation of matter and recovery of his loss but he did not receive any response even from cyber police. When he did not receive any response from concerned bank i.e. Canara Bank/appellant, as well as, from cyber police, even after passing of two months; he made online complaint on 04.05.2021 to RBI but same was rejected on 28.10.2021 by RBI Ombudsman i.e. to say after passing of 6 months of his complaint. On these pleas, he filed complaint with prayer that OP/appellant be directed to pay/refund amount of Rs.6,48,000/- along with interest @ 12% from date of fraud till date of realization coupled with compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh on account of physical and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.51,000/- for litigation expenses.
4. OP/appellant/bank did not raise any contest to the complaint and was proceeded against ex-parte vide learned District Consumer Commission’s order dated 25.05.2023.
5. Complainant led his evidence, oral as well as documentary.
6. On analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Gurgaon has allowed the complaint vide order dated 13.07.2023 and directed OP/insurer to pay Rs.6,48,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from date of each withdrawal till realization. He has also been awarded compensation Rs.1.00,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-. Directions have been ordered to be complied within 45 days from date of order, failing which award will fetch interest @12% p.a., for same period, till realization.
7. Feeling aggrieved; OP/bank has filed this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for appellant/bank has been heard at length, whereas complainant/respondent has filed written arguments. Record of learned District Consumer Commission too has been perused.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there lies no fault on the part of appellant/bank, which had led to alleged unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.6,48,000/- from account of complainant. It is contended that complainant might have had shared the details pertaining to his bank account with some unscrupulous person, who eventually operated his account and succeeded in withdrawing the alleged amount. It is urged that complainant cannot be allowed to take benefits of his own wrongs, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant/bank.
10. Admittedly, complainant holds account with appellant/bank. In a span of about two weeks; 75 transactions have/had been made from his account and whopping amount of Rs.6,48,000/- has been siphoned off without any knowledge to the complainant. Specific plea of complainant that he had requested many times to appellant/bank for linking his account with his mobile number remained un-rebutted and unchallenged as appellant/bank has chosen, not to raise any contest against complaint so filed. The pleas/requests of complainant to appellant/bank to link his account number with mobile number fell on deaf ears. Now-a-days, this is an elementary duty of any bank/financial institution to instantly link mobile number of any customer with his bank account for the purpose of making the customer aware of any transaction conducted from his bank account. There can be no exception so far as appellant/bank is concerned. Having miserably failed to adhere to the request of complainant, to which appellant/bank was legally obligated to do, for the purpose of ensuring safety to complainant’s account; the deficiency in service on the part of appellant/bank is ex-facie proved, ultimately leading to unusually high number of unauthorized transactions being conducted from complainant’s account to his loss. Appellant/bank has to ensure that all loop holes are significantly plugged so as to prevent any unscrupulous person to have an easy and undue access to the account of any customer, with no exception to complainant in order to prevent happening of ensuing loss to its customers. Needless to say that appellant/bank, being a public sector undertaking and principally governed under RBI regulations, would stand in fiduciary relationship with its all customers being custodian and trustee of customers’ account, and appellant/bank cannot ignore this mandatory obligation qua complainant. In wake of this scenario this Commission holds that there would be zero liability of complainant herein, if series of unauthorized transactions had occurred from his account in short span of about two weeks, without his fault.
11. Consequently, this Commission holds that there is no fallacy in the impugned order dated 13.07.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Gurgaon. Impugned order dated 13.07.2023 is maintained, affirmed and upheld. Present appeal of appellant/bank being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
12. Statutory amount of Rs.4,02,696/- deposited by appellant at the time of filing of this appeal be refunded to it, after due identification and verification as per rules and on expiry of period meant for further appeal /revision, if any.
13. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 18th December, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
