STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SAT PAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed against the order dtd. 27/3/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission ") in Consumer Complaint No. 201 of 2015.

(2.) The Complainant/ Respondent is Non-Resident Indian holding NRE Saving Bank Account No. 10019909034 as well as NRE FD Account No. 32764218886 with the Opposite Party/ Appellant. The Respondent operated his account by sending duly signed written requests through registered e-mail. At the time of opening of the Bank Account, the Respondent specifically informed to send his duly signed written requests through registered e-mail ID to operate his account from abroad. His request for transfer of funds would be confirmed telephonically by the Bank. The Appellant, before making such withdrawal or transfer of funds, had to seek scanned signatures of the Respondent so that signatures. The Respondent was also instructed by the Bank that whenever any such request is made, he would also have to confirm by calling Ms. Aruna Saini, Relationship Manager or to Mr. R.K. Nagpal, Assistant General Manager, Branch Head, to confirm that the request for transaction was authentic.signatures. The Respondent was also instructed by the Bank that whenever any such request is made, he would also have to confirm by calling Ms. Aruna Saini, Relationship Manager or to Mr. R.K. Nagpal, Assistant General Manager, Branch Head, to confirm that the request for transaction was authentic.

(3.) The Respondent came to came to know in the end of November, 2013 that an amount of US $26525/- was transferred from his Account on 20/8/2013 and another amount of AU $7500/- was transferred on 30/8/2013 from his FDR Account. It was submitted that the Respondent did not authorize or request the Bank to make any such transfer. The Bank without comparing signatures transferred huge amount outside the country to some account in Malaysia and Australia which were never authorized by the Respondent. On knowing about the two transactions, he immediately wrote a letter dtd. 9/12/2013 to the Bank. The Bank instead of investigating the matter sought the opinion of their Advocate and replied, vide letter dtd. 16/12/2013, that the transactions from his account were made in due course and if the Respondent was having any grievance, he may approach the Cyber Crime Branch at Mohali. On receipt of the reply from the Appellant, he again wrote a letter dtd. 16/12/2013 requesting the Appellant to credit the amount transferred without his authority. The Appellant instead of taking action on his Complaint again replied that the transactions were made in due course and he was again advised by the Bank, that if he had any grievance he may approach Cyber Crime Branch at Mohali, vide its letter dtd. 10/4/2014. On receipt of the letter, he wrote to Smt. Arundhati Bhattacharya, Chairperson, Board of Directors, State Bank of India, Mumbai. Instead of taking any action on the request of the Respondent, the concerned Bank Branch sent a reply, vide its letter dtd. 29/4/2014. On not getting a satisfactory reply from the Chairperson of the Bank, the Respondent took his grievance to the Governor, Reserve Bank of India, informing him of the unprofessional conduct of the Appellant. The matter was then referred to the office of Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman rejected his Complaint, vide its letter dtd. 12/6/2014, without informing or even going through his version and without passing any speaking order but only relied upon the version of the bank. The Appellant or their superior officers were trying to save the skin of their employees and not taking any action on the request of the Respondent. He even approached Smt. Gurpreet Deo, IPS, Police NRI Cell, Mohali on 15/9/2014. After conducting Preliminary Investigation, the said office registered an FIR dtd. 9/12/2014 under Sec. 420 IPC and Sec. 66 of the Information Technology Act. On receipt of the copy of the FIR, he lodged a Complaint with the Chairman, NRI Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh. The Commission took cognizance of his Complaint and issued notice to the Bank. The Respondent sent the document collected from the Bank on the basis of which fraudulent transfers were made to a handwriting expert along with his specimen signatures duly supported by notarized affidavit and copy of Passport and other documents, in order to find out whether the signatures made on the requests given to the Bank were genuine or fabricated. The handwriting expert contended that even with naked eyes it could be seen that the signatures, as sent with the request letters for transfer, were not genuine. The handwriting expert report was received on 6/9/2014, whereby the handwriting expert confirmed his version that the signatures did not match with the specimen signatures of the Respondent as held in the record of the Bank. It was stated that the requests which were sent to the Bank for transferring the amount of US $26525/- and AU $7500/- were sent by a hacker through the email ID of the Respondent. The signatures on the request letters given to the Bank were totally different from the signatures held in the records of the Bank. On receipt of information from the handwriting expert he again sent request letters dtd. 16/8/2013 and 26/8/2013 for reversing the amount. He was given false assurances by the Shri Nagpal, Assistant General Manager of the Bank that his amount would be returned soon as it is under departmental consideration. Due to the deficiency in service by the Appellant, the Respondent suffered huge loss of Rs.20,00,000.00. On failure to get any relief from the Appellant, the Respondent approached the State Commission seeking return of the amount transferred to unknown person.