Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 318.
Instituted on : 25.05.2022
Decided on : 13.06.2024
Dinesh Singh age 58 years son of Sh. Suchet Singh R/o H.No.532/24, D.L.F.Colony, Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Near Police Chowki, Kharkhoda Road, Sampla.
...........……Respondent/opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2019
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Mukesh Parmar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.O.P.Chugh, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is having saving bank account no.00000036154060309 in the State Bank of India Branch at Sampla Rohtak. On 05.10.2021 complainant received message telephonically that Rs.2000/- has been debited through transfer to someone account. After receiving the message complainant immediately has contacted to the respondent and made aware about this illegal transaction and the respondent assured to complainant that the amount will be reversed very soon and further transaction will be stopped. The complainant was shocked to know that nine times of Rs.2000/- each were debited through transfer from his above said account number to someone account for no fault on his part despite giving notice on first illegal transaction. The matter was brought to the notice of Cyber crime at Nangloi Police Station Delhi on dated 05/10/2022 at 11:00 Ρ.Μ. The complainant requested the respondent to do the needful for reversal of the amount through email or personally various times. But the matter was kept lingered on, on one pretext or the other at the end of official of the respondent. That act of non reversal of the nine transaction of Rs.18000/- and further not heeding to the genuine and legal request of the complainant is not only illegal, unjust, and against the rules of Banking. It is, therefore, prayed that respondent be directed to credit Rs.18000/- in the account of the complainant along with interest @18% p. a. from the date of its accrual till realization of the amount and further to pay the 50000/- for causing mental tension harassment, monetary losses for no fault on the part of complainant and also Rs.21000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has denied that on 05/10/2021 complainant has contacted the respondent regarding deduction of Rs.2000/- from the account of complainant as alleged or that the respondent assured the complainant that the amount will be reversed very soon and further transaction will be stopped. It is wrong and denied that nine times unauthorised transactions were made in the complainant's saving bank account or that total amount of Rs.18000/- has been deducted through unauthorised transactions. It is submitted that this account was connected through registered mobile number. It is also submitted that secret code remains only in the knowledge of customer and without using secret code or OTP, no transaction can be made. It is the complainant himself/account holder who has done the said transactions or with his consent by some other person. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent bank. It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed and complainant be directed to pay litigation expenses amounting to Rs.22,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on account of causing unnecessary harassment to the respondent bank. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 20.09.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite party in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on 08.04.2024.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by opposite party as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. At the time of arguments it has been submitted by the complainant that he clicked on a link on his mobile and thereafter his mobile phone was hacked by the hacker. He received a message of debiting the amount of Rs.2000/- through transfer to someone account on 05.10.2022 then he immediately contacted to the opposite party and made aware about this illegal transaction. The opposite party assured the complainant to reverse the said amount but despite giving notice of first illegal transaction of Rs.2000/- to the opposite party, the other amount of Rs.16000/- was deducted from his account through transfer in eight different transactions. Hence it cannot be believed that the complainant has shared any authentic information due to which 9 transactions have been made out by the hacker. Hence there is no negligence on the part of consumer. The opposite party could not stop the alleged transactions despite reporting the matter immediately to the opposite party by the complainant. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per statement of account Ex.C1, an amount of Rs.2000/- for 9 times i.e. total Rs.18000/- has been debited from the account of complainant on 05.10.2021. A copy of Cyber Crime Incident is also placed on record as Ex.C2. On the other hand, opposite party has also placed on record copy of Cyber Crime Incident as Ex.R1 and copy of order of Internal Ombudsman Ex.R2. As per the Cyber Crime Incident Ex.C2/Ex.R1, there was no delay in reporting the matter. We have also perused the copy of award of Ombudsman placed on record as Ex.R2 and as per para no.10 it is submitted that : “Bank has obtained insurance policy which indemnifies bank and bank’s customers against financial loss arising out of unauthorised digital transactions in terms of Circular R&DB/P&SP-Debit card/2/2021 dated 05.04.2021 and R&DB/BOD-INS/3/2022-23 dated 19.04.2022. Bank is advised to examine to submit claim to insurance company for reimbursement for giving relief to customer as per agreement in terms of above circular”. Perusal of this para shows that bank has insurance policy to indemnify the financial loss to the bank as well as its customers. In this situation it is the prime duty of the bank to lodge a claim with the insurance company to indemnify the same. But the opposite party has not taken any step to lodge the claim with the insurance company and to reimburse the amount to the complainant. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to credit the amount in the account of the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.18000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.25.05.2022 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses and to credit the alleged awarded amount in the account of complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.06.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
