AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, against the order dated 23.9.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Complaint No.6 of 2013, whereby the complaint has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was having a mobile connection from respondent No.1/opposite party no.1 Bharti Air Tel Ltd. He also had one account in the State Bank of India and the mobile number of the complainant was registered with the account number of the complainant. It is alleged that on 21.08.2011 a total amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was transferred from his account fraudulently and he got three SMSs alert on his mobile indicating that Rs.45,000/-, Rs.55,000/- and Rs.40,000/- were transferred from his account through internet banking. As the above fund transfers were not authorised by him neither had he carried out any transaction through internet, amount should not have been debited from his account. It has been alleged by the complainant that this could happen as the opposite party No.1 disconnected mobile phone of the complainant and gave the sim to some other customer who fraudulently withdrew this amount. The complainant filed the criminal complaint against the opposite parties and also filed an application before the Banking Ombudsman for recovery of the debited amounts. As the bank could recover Rs.85,000/-, the same was given to the complainant. The Banking Ombudsman vide its order dated 10.01.2012 ordered for payment of the balance amount of Rs.55,000/-.

(3.) Aggrieved, the appellant/complainant filed a consumer complaint No.06 of 2013 before the State Commission alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. The opposite parties filed an application stating that the case was not maintainable in the light of Section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. This application was contested by the complainant, however, the State Commission finally decided that the complaint was not maintainable and accordingly, the complaint was also dismissed.