Delhi

New Delhi

CC/28/2014

Harbhajan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnatka Bank - Opp.Party(s)

11 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

 

       CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

       ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                             NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./28/2014                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Mr. Harbhajan Singh,

18/5, 2^nd floor, West Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008.

 

2. Mrs. Ranjit Kaur

W/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh

18/5, 2^nd floor, West Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008.

 

3. M/s Star Metal Works,

Through its Proprietor Mr. Harbhajan Singh,

J-160, Sector 2, DSIDC Bawana, New Delhi                                              …… Complainants

Versus

1. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

          11/14, West Patel Nagar,

           New Delhi-110008.

 

2. The State Bank of India,

         11, Sansad Mard, New Delhi-110001                                                           ……. Opposite parties

 

ORDER

            H.M. VYAS-MEMBER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainants having 2 savings and 2 current accounts in OP-1 Bank. The complainant no. 3 had also obtained the Over Draft facility of Rs. 4.50 lacs in the current account bearing no. 5467000301009601 against security by of FDR bearing no. 54615002191744011 with the maturity date on 22/05/2014 and maturity amount of Rs. 06,90,222/-. The complainant had also availing internet Banking Facility from the OP-1 for the past 2 years on his 2 savings account only. However, the complainant in the month of October, 2013 sought to avail internet facility for his current accounts as well. In this regards on 28/10/2013 complainants received the transaction password for Current Account bearing no. 5467000301009601 and the same was changed by the complainant on 07/11/2013.
2. On 20/11/2013, complainant no. 1 checked the emails received and found some unknown persons were added as beneficiary in the above mentioned 4 Net Banking Accounts of the complainants without any knowledge of the same to the complainants. It is further alleged that complainants had never given any authority, instructions or permissions to the OP-1 to the OP-1 to add those persons as beneficiary in to the said accounts of the complainant.
3. On 21/11/2013, complainant visited  the Branch of the OP Bank and requested them to provide him the statements of all the said accounts, however, from perusal of accounts status it transpired that some unauthorized transactions of Rs. 04,57,400/- have taken place from the accounts in question. The complainant no. 1 immediately informed the OP-1 about unauthorized transactions and also requested for immediate action and also demanded the reversal of entries thereby crediting back the funds fraudulently transferred from the accounts in question. It is further alleged that the complainant had kept the User ID and Password of the Net Banking account totally confidential and this clearly demonstrate there being a lacuna in the security system of the OP-1 which allows unauthorized access of the accounts of its customers to fraudsters and OP has also failed to refund the unauthorized debited amount from the complainant’s account, hence, this complaint.    
4. Notices were issued to all the OPs, however, none  appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore, it was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16/12/2014.   OP-1 filed its written statement. 
5. It is stated in written statement that this is case of fraud, the Criminal action will be against the perpetrator of the Crime under the appropriative Cyber Law and the provisions of IPC and CRPC as per the Law of the Land.  It is submitted that the fraud has been committed by using login credentials of the internet Banking User and not through Bank Branch. It is further submitted that the User ID and password is known only to the Customer and access to the internet Banking Facility was allowed only after validation of the user ID and the passwords provided. It is submitted that the complainant was the only person having access to the password of the Net Banking and only he was having access to his account and in so far as the compliance of the KYC Norms by the OP-2, It is a matter of investigation of the investigation by the investigating authorities and also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6.  Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  
7. We have heard argument advance at the Bar on behalf of complainant and have perused the record.
8.  However, during the course of the arguments counsel for OP has  raised the objection that the complainant is not a consumer as the fraud transactions in question was done through the current account of the complainants. The complainant, therefore, does not qualify as a ‘consumer’ within the provisions of section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Consequently, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable, the same is hereby dismissed.              Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free  of   cost as      statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.  File be consigned to Record Room.  Announced in open Forum on 11/03/2020.           (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)                 PRESIDENT (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                          (H M VYAS)        MEMBER                                                                                       MEMBER