State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Col. Devesh Chaturvedi vs Punjab National Bank on 14 July, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 38 / 2013
Col. Devesh Chaturvedi (Retd.) S/o Sh. J.P. Chaturvedi
R/o 42/1, Salawala, Near Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1
Dehradun, District Dehradun
...... Appellant / Complainant
Versus
Punjab National Bank
Branch Survey of India, Dehradun
through its Branch Manager
...... Respondent / Opposite Party
Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Vijai Kumar Gupta, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 14/07/2023
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 30 of 2011; Col. Devesh Chaturvedi (Retd.) Vs. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the appellant - complainant was dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the appellant - complainant has retired from Indian Army from the post of Lt. Col. The complainant's pension is used to be credited in his pension account No. 4456000100038157 with Punjab National Bank, Survey of India, Dehradun - respondent 2 (opposite party before the District Commission). On 28.12.2009, while checking his pension account, the complainant gathered that there is credit balance of Rs. 80.75/- only in his account, whereas there ought to have been credit balance of Rs. 5,00,000/- approximately in his account. The complainant informed the bank through e-mail regarding above irregularity in his account and also made personal visit to the bank on 29.12.2009. The details of fraudulent transaction carried out in his account have been given by the complainant in para 3 of the consumer complaint, according to which, vide four transaction all dated 11.12.2009, total sum of Rs. 4,93,500/- was transferred from his account to two different accounts of different entities. The complainant lodged an F.I.R. of the fraud with P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun and also wrote several letters to the higher officials of the bank, but to no avail. Ultimately, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, consumer complaint was set in motion by the complainant before the District Commission.
3. The bank filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that F.I.R. No. 553 of 2009 under Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun on 30.12.2009. The complainant had himself applied with the bank on 24.10.2009 for grant of internet banking facility in relation to operation of his pension account, which was duly allowed / sanctioned to him by the bank. For operation of internet banking facility, the account holder has to take precaution at various steps. The complainant has been negligent while using the internet banking and has utterly failed in adhering to the secrecy of his password etc., for which the bank is not at all liable. The amount in question has been transferred from complainant's account by use of internet banking. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank.
34. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been dismissed by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2013. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed the instant appeal.
5. We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the matter and having gone through the record available before us, we can safely say that the complainant has not come with clean hands and has concealed the material fact. A bare perusal of the consumer complaint shows that the complainant has nowhere stated therein that he has taken internet facility from the bank in relation to operation of his pension account and that the disputed amount came to be transferred from his account by use of internet facility. It is the bank, who has pleaded in para 5 of its written statement before the District Commission that the complainant had applied for grant of internet banking facility on 24.10.2009, which was granted by the bank. The disputed transactions are dated 11.12.2009, i.e., after the grant of internet banking facility by the bank to the complainant. Later on, it was admitted by the complainant that the amount was transferred by use of internet banking.
7. The bank in its letter dated 11.01.2010, copy whereof is Paper Nos. 34 to 35 on record, addressed to the complainant, has stated that in reference to your letter dated 29.12.2009, complaining about unauthorized debit in your account on different dates through Internet Banking Channel, following transactions have taken place in your account:
4Sl. No. Date of transaction Amount of Name of the Beneficiary transaction
1. 11.12.2009 Rs. 4,50,000/- The transaction has taken place through RTGS:
Name of the Bank HSBC, Borivile, Mumbai Name of the Account holder: Philomena Caterers, Account No.: 004486064001
2. 11.12.2009 Rs. 1,000/- Account No.:
45100001000027246 Name of the Account holder: Sukhdev Singh Amarjit Singh Grewal
3. 11.12.2009 Rs. 27,000/- Account No.:
45100001000027246 Name of the Account holder: Sukhdev Singh Amarjit Singh Grewal
4. 11.12.2009 Rs. 15,500/- Account No.:
45100001000027246 Name of the Account holder: Sukhdev Singh Amarjit Singh Grewal
8. The above particulars of disputed transactions have also been depicted by the complainant in para 3 of the consumer complaint. Thus, the amount has been transferred to two accounts, namely, Philomena Caterers and Sukhdev Singh Amarjit Singh Grewal. As is 5 stated above and regarding which, there remains no dispute between the parties that the amount was transferred by use of Internet Banking Channel. In the aforesaid letter of the bank, it is clearly mentioned that they have taken up the matter with HSBC Bank Limited and on telephonic inquiry, it has been informed that the money has been withdrawn from the account. The said letter further states that the bank has taken up the matter with their Kharghar Branch and it has been informed by them that the said account has been blocked by them. However, the fact remains that the amount was transferred through internet banking and it was the foremost duty / obligation of the complainant / account holder to ensure full security in respect of the internet banking facility taken by him from the bank. The situation, as emerges out, clearly reflects negligence / carelessness on the part of the complainant / account holder in ensuring full and complete safety as well as confidentiality of the internet banking facility taken by him from the bank and not to keep the user i.d. and password totally confidential and not reveal the same to any third party. In this context, it is worth mentioning here that there is not even a whisper in the consumer complaint to the effect that the complainant did not share his user i.d. and password of internet banking with anyone. One of the important instructions for use of internet banking was to change the password at the time of first log in. If the complainant has not adhered to any of the required instructions given by the bank, he has himself to blame for alleged fraudulent transaction in his account and he can not be permitted to put entire blame on the bank. Not only this, as is stated above, the complainant has not been courageous and bonafide enough to mention in the consumer complaint that he has availed internet banking facility from the bank and further that the amount came to be transferred from his account by use of internet banking channel. Irrespective of above, no deficiency in service on the part of the bank is borne out from the 6 present set of facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record.
9. Merely because an F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant in regard to alleged fraudulent transaction in his account and accused / culprit has been arrested by the police, is no ground to hold the bank liable to refund the amount withdrawn from the complainant's account.
10. Learned counsel for respondent - bank cited judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Punjab National Bank through the Manager Vs. Lt. Col. Jagdeep Gahlot (Retired) reported in 2014 (2) CPR (NC) 776, wherein it was held that bank is not responsible for transactions made on internet banking. Relevant portion paragraph Nos. 9 & 10 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:
"9. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The basic issue involved in the present case is regarding the transfer of amounts of Rs. 26,000/- and Rs. 19,000/- from the accounts of the complainant and his wife to some other accounts through Internet banking. The petitioner has taken the stand that they had provided the User-ID, and two passwords-one Internet Password and the other Transaction password for each account to the complainant. The petitioner has also produced documents to prove that the Internet password as well as transaction password were duly changed on 05.11.2008. The bank was therefore, not responsible for the transactions 7 made on Internet banking............... The bank has been able to give a convincing explanation that their Internet banking system was not hacked in any manner....................
10. Insofar as the lodging of FIR with the police is concerned, the said FIR was lodged in August, 2009 by the petitioner itself............................
If any unauthorized transaction has been made by anybody, it is subject of criminal investigation only. Any deficiency in service on the part of the bank towards the complainant has not been proved anywhere and hence, it is not justified to provide relief to the complainant by the consumer fora."
11. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cogent reasoning and the same does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Commission. The appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.
12. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K