State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sebastian Karimpil vs Branch Manager,Catholic Syrian Bank on 30 November, 2015
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC.No.80/13
JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2015
PRESENT :
JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
1. Sebastian Karimpil
Liberty Lane Ashoka Road
Kaloor Kochi-682 017.
: COMPLAINANTS
2. Rosamma Sebastian
Liberty Lane Ashoka Road
Kaloor Kochi-682 017.
(By Adv: Sri.Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair & N.G.Mahesh)
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager
Catholic Syrian Bank
Kaloor Branch
Near St. Antony Shrine
Kaloor Kochi-682 017.
(OP1 by Adv: Sri. R.S. Kalkura)
2. The Managing Director/CEO
Catholic Syrian Bank Head Office : OPPOSITE PARTIES
CSB Bhavan PB No.502
St. Mary s College Road
Thrissur-680 020.
3. The Chairman
Catholic Syrian Bank No.24
Unnamalai Ammal Street
Chennai-600 017.
2
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed by the complainants who are husband and wife under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for recovery of Rs.43 00 000/- from the opposite parties Bank which was fraudulently transferred from the account of complainants to some other account with interest and claiming a compensation of Rs.50 00 000/- and a cost of Rs.10 000/- with interest.
2. The case of the complainants as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-
The complainants are husband and wife and are joint account holders of an NRI account of first opposite party Bank. First complainant is working in Saudi Arabia. The opposite parties are bound to strictly follow the RBI guidelines and the prescribed procedure for the fund transfer especially in respect of National Electronic Fund Transfer. No such request for fund transfer in the prescribed form is given by the complainants. On February 24 2010 itself the first complainant has sent an e-mail to first opposite party to the effect that not to entertain any e-ail request as his e-mail ID has been hacked by somebody. On May 24 2013 when second complainant visited the first opposite party Bank she was shocked to know that a fake 3 transaction in their account took place on that day itself for Rs.4 47 056/-.
By the timely intervention of second complainant the said amount was credited back to the account of complainants. Complainants came to know that an amount of Rupees Forty lakhs has been withdrawn fraudulently in two different instances from the account of the complainants. It would appear that e-mail ID and password of complainants were hacked and e- mails were sent to first opposite party requesting to transfer of Rs.9 00 000/- on May 16 2013 which was transferred to account No.24405045630 of Casual Collection Private Limited in Standard Chartered Bank on May 20 2013. There was a second fund transfer based on fake e-mail ID by which Rs.34 lakhs was transferred to the Account No.668120100010325 of Kothari Marble. Therefore on May 25 2013 complainant sent an e-mail to first opposite party to stop sending any messages to his e-mail ID as it has been hacked on May 24 2013. Complainants complained to Station House Officer Kerala Police Cyber Cell (Kochi Unit). The first opposite party Bank Manager has acted in gross violation of guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India in respect of NEFT transfers and procedural guidelines. No instruction was given to opposite parties to avail the facility of e-mail/NEFT transactions. Any fund transfer through NEFT/RTGS requires that the account holder should fill up the prescribed form and to 4 sign cheques for that amount. Opposite parties have not complied with the said formalities. The act of the opposite parties is clearly deficiency of service on their part. Further complainants suffered mental agony and had to spend huge amount for travelling as they had to come from Saudi Arabia to alert the opposite parties. The complainant claimed refund of the said Rs.43.lakhs with interest and a compensation of Rs.50 lakhs and a cost of Rs.5 lakhs.
3. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are Catholic Cyrian Bank Ltd. represented by its Branch Manager Kochi Managing Director Thrissur and Chairman Chennai. They in their version contended thus:-
4. It is true that complainants are maintaining a joint NRE Savings Bank Account with the first opposite party bank from December 10 1991 onwards bearing Account No.16/91 which was subsequently changed to No.112-307863-191001. Complainant had registered their e-mail ID alahrnari @ hotmail.com. On October 25 2009 complainants made an e- mail request to transfer Rs.5 lakhs from first opposite party branch to Nalukodi branch to account No.5202 of one Alphonsa Devasia the sister of first complainant and first opposite party immediately transferred the amount. Though first complainant informed the first opposite party on October 28 2009 that he had made alternate arrangements and sent Rs.6 5 lakhs to his sister subsequently he accepted the said transaction. Therefore he cannot now challenge the validity of the said transaction. On May 16 2013 first opposite party received an e-mail from the e-mail ID of complainant requesting for assistance to transfer Rs.9 lakhs to another account as he had an outstanding payment to make. On a request made by first opposite party complete details of the account of which the amount has to be transferred is received by first opposite party. A reassigned copy of his signed letter was also received by the first opposite party. The amount was transferred to account No.24408045630 of M/s Standard Chartered Bank Borivli Branch. Subsequently on May 20 2013 first opposite party received another e-mail from the complainants e-mail asking for transfer of an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to M/s Kothari Marble Account No.668120100010325 with the Bank of India Fatehpur Udaipur Rajasthan. It was only after verifying the signature of first complainant with his signature in account opening from the amount was transferred. On May 25 2013 another e-mail request was received from the e-mail ID of complainants to transfer Rs.4 47 056.25 to the Account No.034805500222 of M/s Global Impex maintained in ICICI Bank Lamington Road Mumbai. After verifying the signature of first complainant in the account opening form this amount was also transferred. While the said transaction was 6 going on second complainant was present in the Bank. She gave a written request to first opposite party to block that transaction as the transaction was a fake one. She also informed the first opposite party that the transaction pertaining to M/s Casual Collections and M/s Kothari Marbles were also fraudulent. Immediately first opposite party telephonically informed the NEFT centre of ICICI Bank to block the transaction. Thereafter the amount was returned by ICICI Bank and credited to the account of the complainants. The first opposite party immediately filed a complaint before Ernakulam North Police Station and they registered the FIR No.711/2013 on May 26 2013. Though this opposite party contacted Standard Chartered Bank Mumbai and Manager Bank of India Udaipur they informed that the amount has already been withdrawn by the parties. It is true that RBI has prescribed a form to be signed by the parties in respect of Electronic Fund Transfer. But in respect of NRIs who find it difficult to get such a form any signed instruction is accepted. The e-mail dated 24.2.2010 allegedly sent by complainant has not been received by this opposite party. Complainants had visited the Bank on 15.3.2011and 16.4.2011. On those days also they did not inform this opposite party about the hacking of their e-mail ID. For all these reasons the complaint is to be dismissed.
7
5. Complainants are examined as PW1 and PW2 and they produced Exts.A1 to A32. DW1 the Bank Manager was examined on the side of the opposite parties and he produced Exts.B1 to B46.
6. The following points arise for consideration:-
1. Whether the complainants are consumers as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. What are the reliefs the complainants are entitled to?
7. Point No.1:-
The counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainants are not consumers as defined under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act as the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the facts of this case and also that the complaint is barred by limitation. We find no merit in the above contentions of opposite parties. Complainants are having NRI accounts with first opposite party Bank and the banking service is a service as defined under section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) of the Act.
8. The subject matter of the complaint relates to the alleged unauthorized transfers on 16.5.2013 and 20.5.2013. Therefore the complaint is not barred by limitation.
8
9. Point No.2:-
The next question for consideration is whether there was unauthorized transfer of funds from the account of the complainants and if so whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The case of the complainants is that on May 16 2013 the e-mail ID of PW1 and PW2 the complaints were hacked and e-mails were sent to opposite parties requesting for transfer of Rs.9 00 000/- to account No.24405045630 of M/s Standard Chartered Bank Borivli West Branch and on May 25 2013 another e-mail was sent requesting to transfer Rs.34 00 000/- to account No.668120100010325 of Bank of India Fatehpur Udaipur Rajasthan of M/s Kothari Marbles and the opposite party unauthorisedly transferred those amounts to those accounts causing heavy loss to the complainants. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties complainants claimed refund of that amount and compensation.
10. The opposite parties on the other hand contended that they have transferred the amount after complying with the procedure prescribed by RBI in its circulars and that on a previous occasion on the basis of e- mail request of PW1 the first complainant amount was transferred to the 9 account of his sister and that therefore there is no deficiency in service on their part.
11. Complainants were examined as PWs 1 and 2. They testified in terms of the complainant. They produced Exts.A1 to A32. Ext.A1 is the extract of the statement of account of the complainants with the first opposite party bank. Ext.A2 is the copy of the E-mail request of the first complainant dated October 25 2009 to transfer Rs.5 00 000/- to the account of his sister Alphonsa Devasia. Ext.A2(a) is the copy of E-mail sent by first opposite party to the first complainant asking him to write a cheque for the same. Ext.A3 is the copy of e-mail sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party on October 26 2009 not to make any such transfer. Ext.A4 is the copy of e-mail sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party regarding the proposed fund transfer. Ignoring this communication first opposite party transferred Rs.5 00 000/- to the account of the sister of the complainant. Ext.A5 is the copy of e-mail communication dated October 28 2009 sent by first opposite party to the first complainant. Ext.A6 is the copy of e-mail communication sent by the first complainant showing his displeasure in this matter. Ext.A6 is the copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant to first opposite party to get back the said amount from the sisters account. Ext.A7 is the copy of e-mail sent by 10 the first complainant to first opposite party enquiring about the status of the amount which was unauthorisedly transferred to his sisters account. Ext.A8 is the copy of e-mail sent by the first opposite party requesting for his written consent. Ext.A9 is the copy of e-mail sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party expressing his displeasure over the incident. Ext.A10 is the forwarding letter and Ext.A10(a) is the consent letter sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party. Ext.A11 is the copy of e-mail acknowledging the receipt of the same. Ext.A12 is the copy of e-mail sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party again expressing his displeasure. Ext.A13 is the copy of e-mail communication sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party stating that his e-mail ID has been hacked by somebody and not to entertain any e-mail request. Ext.A13(a) is the copy of the letter issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party on 24.5.2013 about the fake transaction. Ext.A14 is the copy of e-mail sent by the first opposite party to the first complainant regarding the fund transfer of Rs.4 47 056/-. Ext.A15 is the copy of e-mail sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party dated 24.5.2013 asking for the details of fund transfer of Rs.4 47 056.25. By A16 first opposite party informed the first complainant that the said amount is credited back to the NRI account of the complainants. Ext.A17 and A18 11 are copies of the forged e-mails requesting the first opposite party to transfer an amount of Rs.9 00 000/- and Rs.34 00 000/- respectively. Ext.A19 is the copy of the e-mail sent to the first opposite party not to entertain any message in his e-mail ID. Ext.A20 is the copy of e-mail complaint sent by first complainant on May 24 2013 to cyber cell police Kochi unit. Ext.A21 is the copy of the complaint filed by the first opposite party before the Station House Officer Kerala Police Cyber Cell Police Kochi Unit Ernakulam. Ext.A22 is the copy of the FIR. Ext.A23 is the e- mail messages sent by the first opposite party to the complainant. First complainant sent a complaint to the Regional Manager of the opposite party. Ext.A24 is the copy of the same. Ext.A25 is the copy of the complaint filed before the General Manager of the Bank. Ext.A26 is the copy of the complaint filed before the Banking Ombudsman. Ext.A27 is the copy of another complaint sent by the complainants to the Bank Manager dated May 27 2013. Ext.A27 (a) is the reply sent by the opposite parties. Ext.A28 is the copy of the complaint sent to the Zonal Manager of the opposite party bank. Ext.A29 is the copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext.A30 is its reply. Ext.A31 is the copy of guidelines of RBI. Ext.A32 is the copy of the prescribed form for NEFT fund transfer.
12
12. On the side of the opposite parties the first opposite party the Branch Manager was examined as DW1. He produced Exts.B1 to B46. Ext.B1 is the account opening form dated December 07 1991 submitted by the complainants. Ext.B2 is the request through e-mail dated October 25 2009 sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party by which first complainant had requested to transfer Rs.5.lakhs to the account of his sister Alphonsa Devasia. Ext.B3 dated October 26 2009 is the reply sent by the first opposite party through e-mail requesting the first complainant to sent a scanned copy of the cheque to transfer the said amount. Ext.B4 is the reply sent by the first complainant through e-mail dated October 26 2009 informing the first opposite party that he did not have a cheque and that he would make alternate arrangements. Ext.B5 dated October 28 2009 is the copy of e-mail issued by the first opposite party to the complainants informing that he has immediately transferred the amount to the account of the sister of the first complainant. Ext.B6 is the copy of e- mail dated October 28 2009 sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party informing him that he has made alternate arrangements and Ext.B7 is the copy of e-mail dated October 28 2009 sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party acknowledging the transaction. Ext.B8 is the copy of e-mail dated October 28 2009 sent by the first 13 opposite party to the first complainant requesting for a written consent for the said transaction. Ext.B9 is the copy of e-mail dated October 28 2009 sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party acknowledging the said transaction. Ext.B11 is the copy of scanned letter of consent dated October 28 2009 sent by first complainant to the first opposite party. Ext.B12 is the copy of e-mail issued by the first opposite party to the first complainant acknowledging the receipt of consent letter. Ext.B13 is the copy of e-mail dated May 16 2013 allegedly sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party asking whether the first opposite party would be able to transfer some funds for him. By Ext.B14 e-mail dated May 16 2013 the first opposite party requested for full details of the transaction to be carried out. Ext.B15 dated May 16 2013 is the e-mail allegedly sent by the first complainant showing the complete details regarding the account to which the amount has to be transferred. By Ext.B16 e-mail dated May 16 2013 the first opposite party requested the first complainant to sent a scanned copy of signed letter. Ext.B17 and 18 dated May 16 2013 are copy of e-mails allegedly sent by the first complainant attaching a signed copy of the letter. Ext.B19 and B20 dated May 20 2013 are the copy of e- mails received by the first opposite party allegedly from the first complainant asking for transfer of Rs.34.lakhs to M/s Kothari Marbles 14 Account No.668120100010325 with the Bank of India Fatehpur Branch Rajasthan. Ext.B21 & B22 are the statements of accounts which show the transfer of the said amount. Ext.B23 is the scanned copy of the letter allegedly signed by the first complainant issued through e-mail dated May 20 2013. Ext.B24 is the letter confirming the transaction issued by the first opposite party to the first complainant. Ext.B25 is the copy of e-mail letter allegedly issued by the first complainant expressing thanks for the said transaction. Ext.B26 dated May 23 2013 is the copy of the e-mail allegedly sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party to transfer an amount of Rs.4 47 056.25 to the account of M/s Global Impex bearing Account No.034805500222 maintained in the ICICI Bank Lamington Road Mumbai. Ext.B27 is the copy of the scanned letter accompanied by the said e-mail. Ext.B28 is the copy of letter sent through e-mail confirming the said transaction. Ext.B29 is the copy of e-mail sent by first opposite party to the first complainant to confirm IFSC code. Ext.B30 dated May 23 2013 is the copy of e-mail allegedly sent by the first complainant confirming the correct code. Ext.B31 is the copy of e-mail dated May 24 2013 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party informing about the transfer of Rs.50 lakhs to the account of the first complainant. Ext.B32 33 & 34 are the copy of e-mails received allegedly by the first opposite party from the 15 complainant confirming the transaction. Ext.B35 dated May 24 2013 is the letter issued by the 2nd complainant to the first opposite party stating that the instruction to transfer the amount to Global Impex was a fake one. Ext.B36 is the e-mail sent by the ICICI Bank on May 25 2013 crediting the amount to the complainants account. Ext.B37 is the copy of e-mail sent by the first opposite party to the Bank of India and Ext.B38 is the copy of e- mail dated May 25 2013 sent by the first opposite party to the Standard Chartered Bank to block the transaction. Ext.B39 is the reply received by the first opposite party from ICICI Bank stating that it was not possible to refund the amount. Ext.B39(a) is the reply sent by the Standard Chartered Bank. Ext.B40 is the letter issued by the first complainant stating that the above said 3 funds transfers from his account was fake and requesting for immediate action. Ext.B41 is the true copy of the police complaint dated May 25 2013 filed by the first opposite party to the Station House Officer Cyber Cell Kochi. Ext.B42 is the true copy of the FIR No.711/13 dated May 26 2013 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. Ext.B43 is the copy of the complaint dated May 27 2013 issued by the 2nd complainant to the first opposite party. Ext.B44 is the true copy of the cheque dated March 15 2011 for Rs.1.lakh issued by the first complainant. Ext.B45 is the copy of another cheque dated April 18 2011 for Rs.2.lakhs issued by 16 the first complainant. Ext.B46 is the copy of the statement of account of the complainants.
13. For the following reasons we are inclined to hold that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party. The opposite parties have not verified the authenticity of the fake e-mail Ext.A17 & A18. The mobile Number code and fax shown therein are Mobile-0096-503821786 and Fax-009663 84228986/8428367. But the correct phone number and fax number of the complainants shown in Ext.A10(a) is Mobile-00966-503821786 Fax-009663 8428986/8428367. Mobile number of complainant having 14 digits while those shown in Ext.A17 & A18 is having only 13 digits. The first opposite party DW1 failed to notice these discrepancies. That apart the e-mail ID of complainant is alahmari @ hotmail.com while that shown in the fake e-mail is alahrnari @ hotmail.com. The failure to note these discrepancies is clear negligence on the part of the first opposite party.
14. Further the first opposite party has violated the Internet Banking Guidelines dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Reserve Bank of India copy of which is produced by the complainants as Ext.B1. Section 6 of the same clearly provides that regarding electronic fund transfer instructions shall be issued by the customer in the prescribed form. In the annexure of the said 17 guidelines the form is shown. No such form is signed by the complainants. It is clear from the above that the opposite parties bank have failed to ensure due care and caution in transferring the funds of the complainants which amount to deficiency of service as held by the National Commission in SBI Vs. Prakash (2014 (4) CPR 548 NC).
15. There is another aspect in this case. Even on February 24 2010 itself by Ext.A10 e-mail communication was sent to the first opposite party stating that the e-mail of the complainants have been hacked. DW1 has conveniently stated that he has not received such an e-mail which appears to be not true. Even thereafter first opposite party had unauthorisedly transferred the fund from the account of the complainants which amounts to deficiency of service.
16. Next question for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to refund of the said Rs.43.lakhs from the opposite parties. As there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and as first opposite party has unauthorisedly transferred the fund from the account of the complainants to 3rd party the complainants are entitled to refund of the said amount.
17. The counsel for the opposite party argued that complaint is not maintainable especially in view of the fact that a police case is pending with 18 respect to disputed transactions. There is no merit in the above contention. In the criminal investigation the subject matter to be investigated is not the deficiency in service of the opposite parties; but the criminal offences committed by the hackers. Supreme Court has held in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalyana Sundaram Cement Industries and Other (1996 KHC 458 Supreme Court) that pendency of criminal case or criminal investigation is not a bar in proceedings with the complaint which was filed on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore we hold that the complaint is maintainable.
18. It is next argued by the counsel for opposite parties that on a previous occasion first complainant had sent an e-mail request to transfer Rs.5.lakhs to the account of his sister on 25.10.2009 as evidenced by Ext.B2 copy of e-mail dated 25.10.2009 and as per that request Rs.5.lakhs was transferred to the account of his sister and that therefore complainants cannot now content that first opposite party not followed the guidelines issued by RBI. There is no substance in the above contention. Opposite parties are bound to follow the guidelines issued by RBI and that he should have obtained the concerned form signed by the complainants. Ext.B2 copy of e-mail sent by the complainant dated 20.10.2009 shows that first complaint had requested not to transfer that amount as he had made 19 alternate arrangements. Therefore there is clear negligence on the part of the opposite parties for obtaining the relevant form got signed by complainants before transferring the amount.
19. Next question is regarding the compensation. Taking into consideration the nature and circumstances of the case and the hardship caused to the complainants we feel that interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint ie October 23 2013 till realization would meet the ends of justice.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.43.lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Complainants are entitled to a cost of Rs.20 000/- in this complaint.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT
V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANTS WITNESS
PW1 : Sri. Sebastian Karimpil
PW2 : Smt. Rosamma Sebastian
20
COMPLAINANTS EXHIBITS
Ext.A1 : Copy of relevant extract of Bank statements.
Ext.A2 : Copy of e-mail request sent to 1st opposite party
dtd:25.10.2009.
Ext.A3 : Copy of e-mail communication to 1st OP dtd:26.10.2009.
Ext.A4 : Copy of e-mail communication with respect to fund transfer to
1st OP.
Ext.A5 : Copy of e-mail communication of the 1st OP to complaint
dtd:28.1.2009.
Ext.A6 : Copy of e-mail communication sent to the 1st OP
dtd:28.10.2009.
Ext.A7 : First complainant sent e-mail to the 1st OP dtd:28.10.2009
about the status of amount.
Ext.A8 : Copy of reply to the e-mail sent by the 1st OP.
Ext.A9 : Copy of e-mail sent to OP by the 1st complainant
dtd:28.10.2009 expressed his displeasure.
Ext.A10 : Copy of e-mail sent by 1st complainant about request letter.
Ext.A10(a) : Copy of consent letter.
Ext.A11 : Copy of acknowledgement receipt received by the 1st OP
through e-mail.
Ext.A12 : Copy of e-mail sent by complainant on 28.10.2009 to 1st OP.
Ext.A13 : Copy of e-mail to 1st OP with respect to not to transfer any
funds via complaint e-mail.
Ext.A13(a) : Copy of complaint sent to 1st OP by the 2nd complainant dtd:24.05.2013.
21Ext.A14 : Copy of e-mail sent to the 1st complainant by the 1st OP. Ext.A15 : Copy of e-mail sent to 1st OP dtd:24.05.2013 about details of NEFT Transfer.
Ext.A16 : Copy of e-mail sent to the 1st complainant by the 1st OP about Rs.4 47 056.25 credited back to his NRI account.
Ext.A17 : Copy of forged e-mail NEFT transaction dtd:16.05.2013. Ext.A18 : Copy of forged e-mail NEFT transaction dtd:20.05.2013 Ext.A19 : Copy of e-mail sent to the 1st OP dtd:25.05.2013 with respect to stop sending any messages to complainant e-mail ID. Ext.A20 : Copy of e-mail sent to the Cyber Cell Police Kochi Unit dtd:24.05.2013.
Ext.A21 : Copy of complaint filed by the 1st OP before the SHO Kerala Police Cyber Cell Kochi.
Ext.A22 : Copy of FIR dtd:26.05.2013.
Ext.A23 : Copy of e-mail sent by 1st OP to complainant.
Ext.A24 : Copy of complaint sent to Regional Manager Catholic Syrian
Bank.
Ext.A25 : Copy of complaint sent to General Manager Catholic Syrian
Bank.
Ext.A26 : Copy of reply of the Banking Ombudsman to the complainant.
Ext.A27 : Copy of complaint sent to the Bank Manager dtd:27.05.2013.
Ext.A27(a) : Copy of reply from the side of Opposite parties dtd:29.05.2013.
Ext.A28 : Copy of complaint to Zonal Manager Catholic Syrian Bank dtd:14.06.2013.
22Ext.A29 : Advocate Notice issued to opposite parties dtd:16.08.2013. Ext.A30 : Reply to the Advocate notice by the opposite parties dtd:29.08.2013.
Ext.A31 : Copy of National Electronic Funds Transfer System Procedural Guidelines (Revised version 1.1 as on September 1 2008) Ext.A32 : Copy of application for fund transfer through RTGS/NEFT facility of Catholic Syrian Bank.
OPPOSITE PARTIES WITNESS
DW1 : Sri. Jayakumar
OPPOSITE PARTIES EXHIBITS
Ext.B1 : Account opening form dtd:7.12.1991 submitted by the
complainants with the first opposite party.
Ext.B2 : Request through e-mail dtd:25.10.2009 issued by the first
complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B3 : Reply given by the first opposite party to the complainant
dated:26.10.2009.
Ext.B4 : Reply issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party
dtd:26.10.2009.
Ext.B5 : E-mail dated:28.10.2009 issued by the first opposite party to
the complainants.
Ext.B6 : Copy of e-mail dtd:28.10.2009 issued by the first complainant
to the first opposite party.
Ext.B7 : Copy of e-mail dated:28.10.2009 issued by the first opposite
party to the first complainant.
23
Ext.B8 : Copy of e-mail dated:28.10.2009 issued by the first
complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B9 : Copy of e-mail dated:28.10.2009 issued by the first opposite
party to the first complainant.
Ext.B10 : Copy of e-mail dated:28.10.2009 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B11 :Copy of scanned letter of consent dtd:28.10.2009 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party duly signed by him.
Ext.B12 : True copy of the e-mail issued by the first opposite party acknowledging the receipt of the consent letter.
Ext.B13 : True Copy of e-mail dated:16.05.2013 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B14 : True Copy of e-mail dated:16.05.2013 issued by the first opposite party to the first complainant.
Ext.B15 : True Copy of e-mail dated:16.05.2013 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B16 : True Copy of e-mail dated:16.05.2013 issued by the first opposite party to the first complainant.
Ext.B17 : True Copy of e-mail dated:16.05.2013 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B18 : True Copy of signed letter issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party dtd:16.05.2013.
Ext.B19 : True Copy of e-mail dated:20.05.2013 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B20 : True Copy of e-mail dated:20.05.2013 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party attaching the statement of account.
24Ext.B21 : True Copy of e-mail dated:20.05.2013 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.B22 : Statement of account issued y the bank through e-mail. Ext.B23 : Scanned letter dtd:20.05.2013 issued by the complainant instructing transfer of an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to M/s Kothari Marble.
Ext.B24 : E-mail dated:20.05.2013 issued by the first opposite party to the first complainant confirming the transfer of funds. Ext.B25 : E-mail of acknowledgement of the said transaction issued by the first complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ext.B26 : E-mail dated:23.5.2013 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party requesting for transfer of amount to M/s Global Impex.
Ext.B27 : Scanned signed letter dated:23.5.2013 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party requesting for transfer of funds to M/s Global Impex.
Ext.B28 :E-mail dated:23.5.2013 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party requesting for confirmation of transfer of funds to M/s Global Impex.
Ext.B29 :E-mail dtd:23.5.2013 informing the first complainant that the IFSC code given by the first complainant was wrong and requesting to confirm the same.
Ext.B30 :E-mail dtd:23.5.2013 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party informing the correct IFSC code.
Ext.B31 :E-mail dtd:24.5.2013 requesting for confirmation of the transfer of funds to M/s Global Impex issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B32 :E-mail dated:24.5.2013 issued by the firstcomplainant to the first opposite party informing a transfer of Rs.56.lakhs to the 25 NRE account maintained by him at the first opposite party branch.
Ext.B33 :E mail dtd:24.5.2013 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party Ext.B34 :E-mail dated:24.5.2013 issued by the first opposite party to the first to the first complainant.
Ext.B35 :True copy pf letter dtd:24.5.2013 issued by the first complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B36 :E-mail dtd:24.5.2013 issued by the first opposite party to the NEFT Centre to block the transaction in respect of M/s Global Impex.
Ext.B37 :True copy of e-mail dtd:24.5.2013 issued by the first opposite party to M/s Bank of India Fathepur Road Branch Rajasthan. Ext.B38 :True copy of the letter dtd:25.5.2013 issued by the first opposite party to M/s Standard Chartered Bank Mumbai. Ext.B39 : True copy of the reply letter dtd:31.5.2013 issued by the M/s Standard Chartered Bank Mumbai to the first opposite party. Ext.B40 :True copy of the letter dtd:25.5.2013 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B41 :True copy of the police complaint dtd:25.5.2013 issued by the first opposite party to the Station House Officer Cyber Cell. Ext.B42 :True copy of FIR registered by the Ernakulam Town North Police Station as FIR No.711 of 2013 dtd:26.5.2013. Ext.B43 :True copy of complaint dated:27.5.2013 issued by the second complainant to the first opposite party.
Ext.B44 :True copy of the cheque No.056904 dtd:15.3.2011 for Rs.1 00 000.00 issued by the complainant.
26Ext.B45 : True copy of the cheque No.056905 dtd:18.4.2011 for Rs.2 00 000.00 issued by the complainant.
Ext.B46 :True copy of the statement of account bearing number 0112 00307863 191001 from 01.10.2009 to 14.12.2013 maintained by the complainant with the 1st opposite party.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT V.V. JOSE : MEMBER VL.