BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.262/2019

DATED ON THIS THE 19^th August 2022

      Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Smt.Lalitha.M.K.,

M.A., B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER  

                        3) Sri Maruthi Vaddar,

                                                B.A., LLB (Special)  - MEMBER

Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

PRESIDENT

1.       The complainant Sri Shivakumar.G resident of Mysuru has filed this complaint against OP No.1 – M/s Paytm, Uttar Pradesh, North India, Regionla Office, Bengaluru and OP No.2 – M/s HDFC Bank Ltd., Mysuru, praying to direct the OPs to pay balance amount of Rs.54,005/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of deactivation of account of the complainant till realization and Rs.50,000/- towards damages, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.     
2.       The brief facts are that:-

The complainant is the customer of OP No.2 having S.B. account No.5010016972732 since 03.08.2016 and maintained the proper fund in his account with OP No.2 bank and using Paytm system adopted by him from his office telephone No.9964191137 and having transaction without any interruption.On 02.05.2017 the OP No.2 made S.B. account of the complainant inoperative without giving any notice and blocked the Paytm facilities provided by OP No.1. The complainant approached the OP No.2, but OP No.2 not given proper reply and informed to the complainant that Anti Bank Fraud Section Police sent E-mail to OP No.2 and requested to hold account of the complainant.But, OP No.2 not furnished any document in this regard and not activated his account.The OP No.1 has checked and found that it has received fraud intimation against his Paytm account through police.On 22.06.2017 the complainant submitted all the necessary record and requested the OP No.1 to resolve the issue.But, on 30.07.2017 Cyber Cell issued letter to complainant that account cannot be activated due to the security reasons.The complainant requested the OP No.2 on several times to permit him to withdraw the amount of Rs.54,005/- in his account which was deposited by his employer.But, OP No.2 not obliged to the request of the complainant. It is further contended that the OP Nos.1 and 2 have not disclosed the reasons for the deactivation and blocked all the transactions of the complainant through his account which is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.Therefore, on 23.10.2017, the complainant got issued legal notice to OPs, but OPs neither replied to legal notice nor complied with the demand made in the legal notice.Hence, this complaint.

3.       After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to OPs.  In response to notices, OP Nos.1 and 2 appeared.  OP No.2 has filed version. In the version of OP No.2, it is contended that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The averments made in para 2 of the complaint that the cmplainant is a customer of OP No.2 having S.B. account No.5010016972732 since 03.08.2016 is not within the knowledge of OP No.2 and it is denied that OP No.2 on 02.05.2017 deactivated the S.B. account of the complainant without giving notice and blocked his account and contended that the OP No.2 acting upon the direction of the Anti Bank Fraud Section Detective Department Kolkata Police Debit Hold the account No.5010016972732.  Therefore, the OP No.2 marked the debit freeze to the said account and further denied the averments made in the complaint that OP No.2 not activated the account of the complainant in spite of requests made by the complainant upon furnishing of Aadhar Card, Pan card, Voter ID, Passport etc., and contended that it is not within the knowledge of OP No.2 that employer of complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.54,005/- to the account of the complainant and denied the averments made in the complaint that the OP No.2 did not permit the complainant to withdraw the said amount and denied the averments made in para 4 of the complaint that on request of the complainant, the OP No.1 promised to activate the account of the complainant as false and contended that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and contended that on the direction of Anti Bank Fraud Section Detective Department Kolkata Police, the account of the complainant was freezed.  For all the reasons, OP No.2 prays to dismiss the complaint.          
4.        The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.  On the other hand, OP No.2 has also filed affidavit by way of examination in chief and same was taken as R.W.1.  and got marked document as Ex.R.1.     
5.       We have heard the arguments of counsel for OP No.2. The complainant did not choose to argue the matter on his behalf in spite of sufficient opportunities were given.    
6.        The points that would arise for our consideration are as under

1. Whether the complainant proves that the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1 :- In the negative

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.          Point No.1:- It is the specific contention of the complainant that he is a customer of OP No.2 and having S.B. account No.5010016972732 since 03.08.2016 and using Paytm system through his office telephone No.9964191137 provided by OP No.1 and it is further specific case of the complainant that on 02.05.2017, the OP No.2 without giving any notice to complainant, blocked his account and stated that Anti Fraud Section Police informed OP No.2 to block the account of the complainant. Therefore, the account of the complainant marked debit freeze and it is further case of the complainant that on 22.06.2017 the complainant submitted all necessary documents such as Aadhar card, PAN card, Voter ID, Passport etc., to OPs and requested to activate the account and permit him to withdraw the amount of Rs.54,005/- deposited by his employer.  But, the OPs did not obliged the request of the complainant. Hence, it is alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Therefore, he got issued a legal notice dated 23.10.2017 calling upon the OPs to activate his account but, the OPs neither complied with the demand made in the legal notice nor activated the account of the complainant.  The complainant got marked Ex.P.1 the E-mail correspondence made by complainant with OP No.2.  Ex.P.2 is also the E-mail correspondence made by OP No.1 stating that your account has been blocked due to security reasons.  Ex.P.3 is also the E-mail correspondence made by the OP No.1 stating that account of the complainant has been blocked due to security reasons.  Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6 also the E-mail correspondences made between complainant and OP No.1.  Ex.P.7 is the copy of the legal notice sent by complainant to OPs calling upon them to activate his account.  On the other hand, OP No.2 got marked Ex.R.1 the E-mail sent by Bank Fraud Section DD Kolkata Police to Sripad Rao Huligery, HDFC Bank i.e. OP No.2 requesting to withdrew the debit hold of the account No.50100169724732 maintained with OP No.2 bank and make it operative. Again the Kolkata Police Bank Fraud Section DD sent E-mail to OP No.2 to debit hold the account No.50100169724732 pertaining to complainant stating that the some defrauded amount has been transferred to the said account via Paytm.  Therefore, on the information given by Bank Fraud Section DD Kolkata Police to OP No.2, the OP No.2 debit hold the account of the complainant and blocked it and deactivated its operation due to security reasons.  Under such circumstances, the contention of the complainant that the OPs have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice holds no water and due to security reasons as requested by the Bank Fraud Section Police Kolkata, the OPs have freezed the account of the complainant and deactivated the same. Therefore, we are considered view that the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that the OPs have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  .   Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative.
9.       Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by complainant is hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 19^th August, 2022)