The complaint case was taken up for admission hearing.

As per factum of this Consumer Complaint, whichis filed u/S 35(1) (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019,thecomplaint is lodged by one Mr. BiswanathBhattcharya of 80/24, Pathbari Lane, PO: Alambazar, PS ;Baranagar, Kolkata 700035for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for not giving cyber security and aiding to unauthorised transaction / deduction for alleged fraudulent actdue to OP bankfor an amount of Rs. 72,196/-. The complainant prays for refund of said amount alongwitha compensation of Rs 10,00,000/- for mental harassment.

The brief fact as averred by thecomplainant is that being a central Govt. officer, heallegedly received 4 number of phone calls on 22.10.2022 at 09.00 pm. at his mobile numbers at 9477320810 and 8583899952 from unknown numbers of 8583899952, 8250849019 and 8388079907 posing as calling from SBI, Head office at Mumbai and Gurgaon demanding PAN card number for updation and threatening to deduct money from his account. Complainant claims that he refused to comply with by disconnecting calls and switching off the mobile. Thecomplainant states that upon switchingon the mobile againto check his YONO SBI App, it was shocking to discover that some unauthorised deductions from his bank accounts took place for Rs. 50000/- from account number 36992788142 of SBI, Rashbehari Avenue branch, Rs 20000/- from account number 40306977583 of SBI,Cossipore branch,Rs 2186/- from account number 30260963890 of SBI, High Court branch and Rs 10/- from account number 20108567943 of SBI,Baghbazar branch. The complainant lodged a FIR no. 623/2022 on 23.10.2022 at local PS. Complainant also visited the branches and got cooperation.

From the complaint petition it appears that it is the admitted position of the complainant that he received suspicious phone calls at his mobile numbers. The main issues involved in this complaint are centeringaroundthose relating to cheating and fraudmay be including cyber crime.In this case, the alleged amount, if withdrawn, has also the scope to be debited on the basis of transactions against the net banking app SBI YONO or by using customer’s registered mobile number where the fraudulent calls came or through debit/credit card in customer’s possession which are secured by secret PIN selected by the account holder. Without trial, it is difficult to find out whether any fraud or unauthorized online transaction took place from Internet Banking, unless the customer or bank compromises on personal identification parameters inadvertently or otherwise. Also such like frauds can occur either by clicking on the links received through phishing mails or links received in whatsapp which can auto-read the log in Id, passwords or other personal details like date of birth, grid card values, mothers maiden name etc. or through desk tops, infected with Malwares etc.

In this respect, attention is drawn to the Judgement dated 17.12. 2019 by the National Commission in the Consumer Complaint No.76 of 2011 wherein relevant para No.16 & 17 which reads as under :

“16.    From the above judgments, it is brought out that complaint case where forgery and fraud has been alleged by one party against the other party and the same is denied by the other party cannot be decided in a summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because it requires lot of voluminous evidence to be produced by both the parties in support of their assertions, which is not possible in the summary proceedings.  Proper forum for adjudication of such complaints is only the Civil Court having proper jurisdiction.

17.    Based on the above discussion, this complaint cannot be decided under the summary procedure laid down in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it would require voluminous evidence to be produced by both the parties in support of their assertions.  The proper forum for the present complaint would be the civil court of appropriate jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the CC No.76 of 2011 is dismissed.  However, the liberty is granted to the complainant to approach the Civil Court of proper jurisdiction for seeking relief in the matter, if so advised.”

Attention is also drawn to a similar consumer complaint and theJudgement dated 03.01.2022 by the National Commission in the Consumer Complaint No.767 of 2011 in the matter of Manisha SohilkumarShovatiya Vs HDFC Bank &Ors. wherein it is held that :-

“This Commission is not the appropriate forum to decide on matters like this. In such a situation, the issue of deficiency of service as stated by the Complainant on the part of the OP No.1 & OP No.2 is not relevant at this stage.  Further, whether certain bank officials colluded alongwith OP No.3 is once again a matter of detailed investigation.  Since, the husband of the Complainant has filed FIR in the matter in 2019, it is expected that the police would carry out the necessary investigation:

The Judgement in respect of theConsumer case cited by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant in the Appeal petition at National Commission, New Delhi in the matter of Punjab National Bank Vs Leader Valves Ltd. in Appeal no. 112 of 2015 against Order of 2014 in complaint case no. 45 of 2010 was examined threadbare. It is found that the cited complaint relates to a complainant of original case who maintained cash credit facility from OP bank and out of their 3 accounts of various nature, they were entitled to operate only 1 account with user Id and password, whereas the other 2 accounts were under exclusive control of bank. The alleged wrongful debit from customer account was done by debiting their C/c book debit account for which the complainant had no functional control. Moreover the debited amount was credited to another account of the same bankwhich is solely under bank’s control. This is not a case herein. Hence it is crystal clear that the contention of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant can not be factored in, into the case in hand, in a straight jacket manner.

It is fully agreed with the abovesaid Judgements of Hon’ble National Commisioninter alia that since this complaint case brings out cyber crime and fraud by one party against the other, such dispute cannot be adjudicated in a summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act because it requires lot of voluminous evidence to be produced by both the parties in support of their averrments, which is next to impossible in the summary proceedings. Proper forum for adjudication of such complaints is only the Civil Court having proper jurisdiction. Hence this complaint case requires a detailed investigation in view of the grains of forgery, cheating, cyber crime etc. being involvedand FIR lodged. This Commission is not the appropriate forum to decide on matters like this with scopes of summary proceedings. In such a situation, the issue of deficiency of service as stated by the complainant on the part of the banks is not relevant at this stage. Further, whether the bank contributed to aiding and abeting unauthorised transactions, as alleged by complainant,  is once again a matter of detailed investigation.  Since, the Complainant has filed FIR in this matter, it is expected that the police would carry out the necessary investigation based on outcome of which only, extent of damage can be ascertained, if proved.

In view of the forgoing discussion the complaint can not be admitted at this stage. Hence the complaint case is disposed of as not being admitted.