State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Ravikiran Sandipan Giri on 21 February, 2024
1
Date of filing :03.09.2018
Date of order :21.02.2024
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 346 OF 2018
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 03 OF 2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR.
HDFC BANK LTD,. Appellant
Having its Branch Office at (Adv.M.D.Narwadkar)
CTS No.4705, Ora Niwas,
31/1 M.G.Road, Near Municipal
Corporation, Latur.
Through its Authorised Officer.
VERSUS
1. Ravikiran Sandipan Giri, Respondent No.1
R/o Sahyog Colony, Ring road, (Ex-parte)
Latur.
2. Vinod Navnathrao Mokashe, Respondent No.2
R/o Vikram Nagar, Latur. (Ex-parte)
CORAM : Dr.Nisha.A.Chavhan, Hon'ble Member.
Nagesh C.Kumber, Hon'ble Member.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 21/02/2024) Per Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member..
The Appellant has challenge in this Appeal, Judgment and order passed by the District consumer commission, Latur, in C.C.No. 03/2017 dtd.24.04.2018 2 For the sake of brevity the appellant is herein after referred as opponent no.1, respondent no.1 is as complainant and respondent no.2 is as opponent no. 2 as per their status in consumer complaint and District Consumer Commission, Latur is herein after referred as District commission.
2. Brief facts of the case of the complainant is as under :-
Complainant have saving bank account No.50100042706531 with opponent no.1. The complainant alleged that opponent no.1 issued credit card and on 30.09.2016 complainant obtained loan of Rs 75,000/-with interest @ 12% on the credit card which was deposited in his saving account. The friend of complainant, Ashok Dede demanded hand loan of Rs. 20,000/- to him and accordingly he transferred the amount by using Net- Banking. The opponent no.1 given reference number Of said transaction is 8805A-1 and send massage about successful transaction to complainant. Thereafter, it reveals that the amount was transferred to account no.03601050019071 of former employee of opponent no.1,Vinod Mokashe and not to Ashok Dede. The complainant immediately made complaint about this incident to opponent no.1 and demanded refund of said amount. Opponent no.1 was not refunded therefore, complainant filed consumer complainant and claim Rs.20,000/-with interest @18 % from 30.09.2016, Rs. 15,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs.1000/- for cost of litigation. The complainant field copies of relevant documents such as complaint &on line complaint to opponent no.1, reply of opponent no.1, massage of successful transaction, massage for transferring of amount, Bank statement of complainant and Vinod Mokashe etc. 3
3. The opponent no.1 and opponent no.2 appeared before the District commission but as they have not field written statement within time, No Say order has been passed against them.
4. The District commission after considering the evidence on record and hearing, partly allowed the complaint and directed to opponent no.1 to deposit Rs.20,000/-/- with interest @ 6 % from 30.09.2016 within 30 days from the date of the order in the account of complainant, in default has to pay interest @ 10 % from 30.09.2016 till realization, Rs. 3,000/-for physical and mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- for cost of litigation to complainant.
5. Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgement and order the opponent no.1 filed present appeal. Adv.M.D.Narwadkar for opponent no.1 is present. Complainant and opponent no.2 duly served but has not given appearance. The matter proceeded ex party against complainant and opponent no.2. we heard Adv. Narwadkar for opponent no.1.
6. Adv.Narwadkar for opponent no.1 argued and submitted by way of pleading that in the concept of Net-Banking the customer is the owner of his account and a secured password is given to him over which the bank has no control. After receiving the request of customer bank has to transfer the funds to the beneficiary chosen by the customer after necessary verifications. It is also submitted by opponent no.1 that the transactions from Net Banking is the responsibility of the 4 customer and bank cannot be held responsible for incorrect transaction, negligence and error committed by customer. It is also submitted by opponent no.1 that the Commission below relied on the sole version of complainant and without considering the possible stand of opponent no.1 allowed the complaint which is against law and there is no deficiency committed by opponent no.1 therefore impugned judgement and order deserve to be quashed and set aside.
7. On perusing the record of the case it appears that complainant is the consumer of opponent no.1 having saving account. The complainant transferred Rs.20,000/- to his friend Ashok Dede on Net-Banking and received massage about successful transaction from opponent no.1. The copy of massage is filed by complainant on record. Later on he noticed that the amount transferred was not received by his friend but it was wrongly transferred in the account of opponent no.2, Vinod Mokashe who was the former employee of opponent no.1. Information of the said wrong transaction has been given immediately and lodge on line complainant with opponent no.1 by complainant. On the very next day on 01.10.2016 complainant filed written application with opponent no.1 stating therein about the wrong transaction due to faulty Net Banking System and request to reverse the said amount from the account of opponent no.2 as opponent no.2 given no objection for reverse of said amount. 0n 14.10.2016 opponent no.1 replied to complainant that the account of opponent no.2 does not have sufficient balance to reverse the amount and inform about the requirement of NOC of opponent no.2 and not reverse the amount to the account of complainant.
58. On perusing the bank statement of complainant and opponent no.2 it appears that 0n 30.09.2016 the amount was transferred from the account of complainant towards account of opponent no.2 and there was no withdrawal of amount by opponent no.2.The complainant immediately brought to the notice of opponent no.1 about the wrong transaction therefore the opponent no.1 ought to have immediately reverse the amount in the account of complainant or keep the amount on hold and after necessary inquiry reverse the amount in the account of complainant. We are of the opinion that it is the part of service of bank ,if the amount of any customer is transferred to any other account without his choice, wrongly or by mistake and if the customer informed the bank immediately then it is the responsibility of the bank to reverse the amount or to keep on hold the amount without requiring NOC of other account holder and after necessary inquiry reverse the amount in the account of his customer.
9. In spite of sufficient opportunities, o no.1 failed to file the written statement, hence, No Say order was passed by District Commission against opponent no.1 and therefore, opponent no.1 failed to challenge the allegations in complaint. Therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence placed on record by complainant. Therefore, the Commission below rightly held that, due to faulty Net-Banking system of opponent no.1 the amount of complainant transferred to the account of opponent no.2 and after having immediate information about the wrong transaction, the opponent no.1 has not taken the necessary steps to reverse the amount in the account of complainant.
6Thus, opponent no.1 committed deficiency in service towards complainant.
10. It reveals that the District Commission after perusing the entire record and evidence before it has rightly arrived to a finding of deficiency in service committed by opponent no.1 and passed the impugned judgment and order. We do not find any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to interference in the said order.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion we are of the view that, the appeal is devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed. In the fact and circumstances of the case there would be no order as to cost. Hence we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copy of this judgment be given to parties free of cost.
N.C.Kumbre Dr.N.A.Chavhan
Member Member
UNK
7