NIEL E. LOBO Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') assails the order dtd. 14/6/2018 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No.41 of 2014 disallowing the complaint.

(2.) We have heard the Learned Counsels for both Parties and perused the records.

(3.) The brief facts of this case are that the Appellant, who is an NRI resident in USA, had a bank account with the Respondent (erstwhile Vijaya Bank). The account was opened on 16/3/2006 for the purpose of transactions in India relating to investments. According to the Appellant, he learnt on 23/4/2013 from his investment advisor that a sum of 80,000 USD amounting to Rs.43,87,531.00 had been transferred to the account of one Sheila Montgomer of North Carolina, USA. Upon enquiries with the Chief Manager of the Respondent Bank it came to the knowledge of the Appellant that 80,000 USD amounting to Rs.43,87,531.00 had been transferred in two instalments of 30,000 and 50,000 USD on 5th and 12/4/2013 respectively from the Complainant's NRE account with the respondent. Following inquiries with the respondent Bank, the Complainant suspected that his email had been hacked and instructions for transfer of funds had been sent by the hacker and therefore a complaint by way of email dtd. 24/4/2013 was filed with the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Branch, Bangalore to investigate the matter followed by a letter of his Portfolio Advisor to the Supdt. of Police, Cyber Crime Cell on 6/5/2013. An FIR was also lodged by the Appellant on 28/5/2013 with the Indiranagar Police Station, Bangalore. A complaint was thereafter filed with the Banking Ombudsman to investigate into the unauthorized transfer of funds on 22/5/2013. The Banking Ombudsman, vide reply dtd. 1/7/2013, conveyed that they were unable to proceed with the complaint as per Clause 13(c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 since the complaint required consideration of an elaborate documentary and oral evidence and such proceedings for adjudication of complaints of this nature did not lie before it. Alleging that the Respondent had transferred large sums of money from the Complainant's NRE account without authorization, a complaint was filed before the State Commission by the Appellant. It was stated that the Respondent had processed the request for transfer of funds on the basis of email allegedly received without exercising diligence in obtaining the original Application-Cum-Declaration Form for the transfer of functions or verifying identity of the applicant. It was also alleged that the photocopies of the Application-Cum-Declaration Forms dtd. 4/4/2013 and 11/4/2013 clearly indicated that the signatures were forged. The State Commission decided the complaint on contest and held that the complaint was not maintainable in view of the fact that the matter was a criminal case for which an FIR had been issued by the Police and involved complicated facts. It also held that the Complainant had failed to implead the Financial Advisor in the array of parties and was therefore bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Giving opportunity to the Complainant to approach the competent Forum under the Information Technology Act, 2000, the complaint was dismissed by way of the impugned order which is appealed against in these proceedings praying to set aside the order dtd. 14/6/2018 and to allow the claim of the Petitioner with any other order deemed fit.