Tripura

StateCommission

A/19/2019

The Indian bank, Registered Office MO- 62 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Miss. Arnisha Das. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. C. S. Singha

16 Nov 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.19.2019

 

 

 

1. Indian Bank,

Registered Office No.62, Goudiya Mutt Road,

Royapettah, Chennai,Tamil Nadu, 600014. 

 

2. Branch Manager,

Indian Bank, Gurkhabasti Branch,

Kathal Bagan, Airport Road,

Pin: 799006.

… … … … Appellant/Opposite parties.

Vs

 

1. Ms. Arnisha Das,

D/o Shri Sishta Das,

Bholananda Palli, Barjala Road,

P.O. Kathal Bagan, Agartala,

District -West Tripura, Pin: 799006

[Represented by her father Shri Sishta Das].

                                                          … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                              Mr. Chandrasekhar Sinha, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                            Mr. Kajal Nandi, Adv.

Date of Hearing&Delivery of Judgment:            16.11.2019.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the Indian Bank and another against the judgment dated 06.06.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.74 of 2018whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the complainant, the respondent herein, directing the opposite parties, the appellants herein, to refund an amount of Rs.27,744/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.4,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.41,744/- which shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which, the amount of compensation shall carry interest @9% per annum till the payment is made in full.

2. Heard Mr. Chandrasekhar Sinha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties) as well as Mr. Kajal Nandi, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Complainant, Ms. Arnisha Dash as one Savings Bank Account bearing No.6569562528 with the opposite partyno.2, the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Gurkhabasti Branch, Kathal Bagan, Airport Road, Agartala. On 03.08.2018, the father of the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- by RTGS from Tripura State Co-operative Bank to her account in the Indian Bank, Gurkhabasti Branch. As the complainant has been temporarily residing at Bangalore, she obtained one ATM-cum-Debit Card from the opposite party, Indian Bank and utilized the same at Bangalore for the purpose of withdrawal of money from her account by using the said ATM card. On 03.08.2018, the complainant had withdrawn Rs.500/- by dint of her ATM card at Bangalore, but the following day i.e. on 04.08.2018, she noticed that in four different ATM Purch transactions a total amount of Rs.27,744/- i.e. Rs.9.000/- + Rs.9,000/- + Rs.9,000/- + Rs.744/-, was withdrawn. The complainant immediately after noticing the fraudulent transactions of the aforesaid amount informed her father and accordingly, her father also on the same day informed the matter to the opposite partyno.2, the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Gurkhabasti Branch, Agartala. Her father on 06.08.2018 also sent a complaint in writing to the Regional Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Agartala for taking needful action in the matter. The opposite party, Indian Bank has furnished the details of the transactions made from the account of the complainant to the father of the complainant and in the bank's statement report; the opposite party-Bank has also stated that “We are unable to refund the amount as the services have been availed”. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party-Bank did not refund the amount of Rs.27,744/- which has been fraudulently withdrawn from her account and that the opposite party-Bank also failed to furnish detailed information as to how and where the transactions had occurred.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the services of the opposite parties, the complainant through her father filed a complaint praying for compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and hardship suffered by her and also for direction upon the opposite parties to refund Rs.27,744/- which has been fraudulently withdrawn from her account. Hence, the complaint petition.
5. Opposite party, Indian Bank has contested the case by filing a written statement denying any deficiency of service towards the complainant. Regarding the alleged withdrawals for an amount of Rs.27,744/- from the account of the complainant, the opposite party 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 opposite party cannot be held liable for the alleged fraudulent withdrawals from the savings bank account of the complainant. The opposite party-Bank has supplied the details of the transactions as sought for by the complainant and that the opposite party has also informed the complainant that they were unable to refund the amount as the matter has not being dealt with by the opposite party Branch, Agartala. Thus the complaint petition should be dismissed.
6. The learned District Forum considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record formulated the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/relief as prayed for?

And ultimately, allowed the complaint petition.

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned District Forum, the appellant-opposite parties-Bank has filed the instant appeal.
8. Mr. Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party-Bank while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment with some general discussion regarding the payment of mode, but did not consider the mode of payment through Paytm App. For transaction through Paytm App, an OTP number/Pin of the ATM Card/Paytm are required and the complainant did not furnish in her complaint those information and as a result, the appellant-opposite parties, Bank could not ascertain her grievances. Mr. Sinha has also contended that the learned District Forum has failed to consider the fact that through Paytm, a consumer can transfer money to another Paytm and not only that, through Paytm, some articles can be purchased from the shops paying to the shopkeeper in his Paytm. He has placed some documents regarding transaction dashboard relating to complainant’s Paytm transaction from where it would be evident that the payment was made at Noida through Paytm i.e. e-transaction for purchasing some articles. He again submits that Rs.744/- was paid through debit card at Bangalore for purchasing some articles from the shop. He has further contended that the opposite party-Bank has collected the information from the ATM Alerts, ZO Guwahati which has informed that transaction for Rs.744/- was done by presenting the card, using the Pin and all other Paytm transactions were authenticated by OTP and without entering the correct Pin/OTP, transactions would not be completed. He has finally contended that now a days, due to development of technology, the transaction can be made by the account holder through debit card/credit card and also through Apps in the mobile like Paytm, Pay mini, Google Pay, MobiKwik etc. and from Paytm to Paytm and anybody can purchase articles from the shops using the said Apps on the basis of password or OTP even at a place far away from the place where the account holder is staying.
9. Mr. Nandi, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the complainant was at Bangalore while the transaction has made at Noida and accordingly, she informed the matter to her father at Agartala who after receiving the information lodged complaint to the Reserve Bank of India, Agartala as well as opposite parties-Bank. He further submits that her father also lodged the GD entry on 08.08.2018 before the New Capital Complex (NCC) Police Station, Agartala. He finally submits that the learned District Forum considering all the evidences rightly passed the judgment.
10. We have gone through the complaint petition as well as the evidence on record. In the complaint petition, the complainant did not disclose as to whether she used the Paytm Apps or any other Apps by which transaction can be made, but from transaction dashboard as placed before us it appears that the transactions were made so far Rs.9,000/- + Rs.9,000/- + Rs.9,000/- at Noida through Paytm App for purchasing some articles and so far transaction of Rs.744/- at Bangalore was by creative style ba i.e. ATM card. As the aforesaid documents were not placed before the learned District Forum, the learned District Forum did not get any opportunity to consider the same. We are also of the opinion that the learned District Forum in its judgment nowhere discussed regarding the function of the electronic Apps like Paytm in its judgment. Transaction of money is possible from different parts other than the place where the account holder stays, or account exists. 
11. Considering the facts of the case in hand and the submission of Mr. Sinha, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the learned District Forum to decide the case afresh. We are also of the opinion that the appellant-opposite parties should be allowed to submit the documents relied by him before this Commission to the learned District Forum as an additional evidence giving a copy of the documents to the complainant and the learned District Forum shall consider those documents and also provide opportunity to the parties for raising other points, if they desire at the time of hearing. The learned District Forum shall issue notice upon the parties for their appearance so that they can submit the documents and also take part in the hearing.

In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum to decide the case afresh as indicated above. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura