State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Atish Azad Salunke H.No.3.67.1.9, ... vs 1.Icici Bank on 8 March, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. FA/99/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 23/01/2014 in Case No. CC/16/2013 of District Rangareddi) 1. Atish Azad Salunke H.No.3.67.1.9, Beside Srinivasa Towers, MMTS Road, Gangaram, Chandanagar, Hyderabad 500 050, A.P. India Permanent Address 3B 102, Dreams, LBS Marg, Bhandup West, Mumbai 400 078, India ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1.ICICI Bank Rep. by its Branch Manger, ICICI Bank Ltd., Titus, Building No.10, Mindspace, Raheja IT Park Pvt. Ltd., Madhapur, Hyderabad 500 081 2. 2.Vodafone Rep. by its Branch Manager Vodafone South Limited, 6th Floor, Varun Towers II, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016 3. 3.Standard Chartered Bank Rep. by its Branch Manager 6.3.1090, Raj Bhavan Raod, Hyderabad 500 082. AP 4. 4.Reserve Bank of India Rep. by its Branch Manager 6.1.56, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hydrabad 500 004 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 08 Mar 2018 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : At HYDERABAD FA 99 of 2014 AGAINST CC No. 16 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY Between : Atish Azad Salunke Temporary Address : H.No.3-67-1-9, Besie Srinvisa Towers MMTS road, Gangaram, Chandanagar, Hyderabad - 500050, A.P. Permanent Address : # 3B-102, Dreams, LBS Marg, Bhandup ( West), Mumbai - 400 078, INDIA .. Appellant/complainant And ICICI Bank Represented by its Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd, Titus, Building No.10, Mindspace, Raeja IT Park Pvt. Limited Madhapur, Hyderabad- 500 081. VODAFONE Represented by its Branch Manager, Vodafone South Limited 6th floor, varun Towers II, Begumpet, Hyderabad- 500 016. Standard Chartered Bank Represented by its Branch Manager #6-3-1090, Raj Bhavan Road Hyderabad - 500 082, A.P. Reserve Bank of India, Represented by its Branch Manager, #6-1-56, Secretariat road, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004 .. Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Thaku Poornima Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. S. Nagesh Reddy for R-1 Sri B. Ravindra Reddy for R-2 M/s. Lotus Law Associates for R-3. Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Thursday, the Eighth Day of March Two Thousand Eighteen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the unsuccessful complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 23/01/2014 made in CC 16 of 2013 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Ranga Reddy.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he noticed on 01.02.2012 at about 1.35 pm that an amount of Rs.2,08,747/- was fraudulently and illegally transferred from his salary Account No. 059801505690 with opposite party no.1 bank without his knowledge. He was informed by the First opposite party ICICI Bank officials that Rs.5,000/- each were transferred to two Accounts of the same bank, one was active and the another was inactive on 30.01.0212 and on 31.01.2012 an amount of Rs.1,98,747/- was transferred to some other Account of OP. No. 3 Bank. Then he lodged a complaint with first opposite party bank and RBI as directed by Cyber Crime Police. The Vodafone Mobile No. 9052190694 was suddenly inactive on 30.01.2012 from afternoon and he could not receive any SMS alerts in respect of the above transactions of his ICICI Bank. He did not receive any satisfactory answer about the inactive of his mobile from them. The Cyber Crime Police informed him that Kolkata Police seized Rs.1,22,000/- and deposited the said amount in the Court at Kolkata and the amount will be returned to him after completion of trial and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.2,08,747/- with compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment with costs of Rs.50,000/-.
4). The first opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting that the complainant is their Account holder and he lodged a complaint with their bank on 01.02.2012 about the fraudulently transfer of amount from his Account and after investigation they found that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was transferred to Ganpat Yadav Account No. 657301500031 with ICICI Bank on 30.01.2012, Rs.5,000/-was transferred to Jujarsingh Solanki, Account No. 034801503489 with ICICI Bank on 30.01.2012 but his Account was closed on 06.02.2012 and Rs.1,98,747/- was transferred to Anindita Shaha Account No. 32410378546 with Standard Chartered Bank on 31.01.2012. They freezed the amounts in the account of the complainant diligently. Their bank opted to refund an amount of Rs.8,000/- if he executes an indemnity. They are not liable for Internet frauds. Without personal identification parameters it is not possible for fraudulent transaction. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5). The second opposite party contended that deactivation was made on the request of the complainant with the Vodafone Mini Store ( Franchisee), M/s. Vasavi Enterprises, Hyderabad on 30.01.0212 for issuing a new SIM to the said Mobile. Their company has blocked the Old SIM card and issued new SIM. Their company is not liable to the alleged fraudulent money transfers. They are not rendering Internet banking services. The complainant did not lodge any complaint with them barring of services on his mobile number immediately. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6). The third opposite party in their counter contended that their Bank has been added only as a proforma party and on 31.01.2012, an amount of Rs.1,98,730/- was transferred to Savings Bank Account No. 32410378546 belonging to Mrs. Anindita Saha . Since it is alleged that the said transaction is fraudulent, the same was reported to RBI and the police of West Bengal took up investigation and under their instructions, their bank stopped the transactions of the said account. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint against it.
7). The fourth opposite party contended that RBI is neither necessary nor proper party for the adjudication of the dispute between the Account holder and his banker and after receipt of complaint from the office of the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad, in conciliation meeting held on 24.04.2012, it transpired that ICICI Bank as well as Standard Chartered Bank have carried out necessary KYC cheques on the beneficiary amounts and have submitted supporting documents. Duplicate SIM card was issued to the complainant by the service provider. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-5 and the opposite party No.1 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 and OP.2 filed evidence affidavit and OP.3 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B2 to B5. Heard both sides and the Ops 1 and 2 filed their written arguments and OP 3 field a memo to treat his written version as their written arguments.
9) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
10) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
11). Both parties have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments and heard them.
12) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 13). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant is the Account holder bearing Account No. 059801505690 with the opposite party no.1 bank. There is also no dispute that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was transferred to Ganpat Yadav Account No. 657301500031 with ICICI Bank on 30.01.2012, Rs.5,000/-was transferred to Jujarsingh Solanki, Account No. 034801503489 with ICICI Bank on 30.01.2012 but his Account was closed on 06.02.2012 and Rs.1,98,747/- was transferred to Anindita Shaha Account No. 32410378546 with Standard Chartered Bank on 31.01.2012.
14). The contention of the appellant/complainant is that the Vodafone Mobile No. 9052190694 was suddenly inactive on 30.01.2012 from afternoon and he could not receive any SMS alerts in respect of the above transactions of his ICICI Bank. . On the other hand, the first respondent/1st opposite party contended that the Old SIM was blocked and new SIM was issued on the request of the appellant/complainant, they are liable for telecommunication services but not to any other internet banking services. He also lodged complaint with Cyber Crimes Police Station on 02.02.2012 vide Ex.A-4 about the alleged fraud and investigation is pending. Further, the appellant/complainant's contention is that the Cyber Crime Police informed him that Kolkata Police seized Rs.1,22,000/- and deposited the said amount in the Court at Kolkata and the amount will be returned to him after completion of trial.
15). The District Forum observed that since the complaint involves complicated questions of fact and law and it is also necessary to hear the account holders in whose favour the amounts were transferred from the account of the complainant and the police investigation is pending and hence in those circumstances the appellant/complainant is advised to approach appropriate Civil Court.
16) Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that because of the carelessness in allowing the fraudsters to open their accounts in their bank and allowing huge transactions without any verification clearly amounts to deficiency in service.
17). We have made it a point that the appellant/complainant himself admitted that the Cyber Crime Police informed him that Kolkata Police seized Rs.1,22,000/- and deposited the said amount in the Court at Kolkata and the amount will be returned to him after completion of trial. When such is the stage of the matter and that too when the fraud had occurred during internet banking and it is not possible to deduct the amount without disclosing the confidential details of the account holder like login ID, password, transaction password, debit card grid information etc. of the appellant/complainant from his account and it is premature to decide the case at this stage. Further, since the first opposite party already informed the particulars of fraudsters, the appellant/complainant can take appropriate steps to get his amount by way of legal methods by approaching appropriate authorities, if he did not get the amount from the Court at Kolkatta as was informed. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties since they have already given particulars of fraudsters.
18). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order. There are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
19). Point No. 2 : In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 23.01.2014 in CC 16 of 2013 passed by the District Forum, Ranga Reddy. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks. PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 08.03.2018. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER