The Commission then companysidered whether the OP Bank should be made liable to make good the loss suffered by the Complainant.
With this information, the companyplainant demanded return of the siphoned sum with interest in the schools bank account.
386 of 2018 NCDRC The State Commission Page 1 of 13 to Rs 1,00,000/ although the companyplainant suffered total loss of Rs 30,00,000/ , from their Bank Accounts and sought return of the lost sum.
5,00,000/ by the next day, may have been occasioned by the companytributory negligence of the school authorities.
10,000/ , to the companyplainant.
The Commission also numbered that the school Principal failed to inform the BSNL authorities and the Bank in due time and thus despite detecting the illegal transfer of the large sum i.e. Rs 25,00,000/ , the official companyplaint was number lodged on 9.9.2014 itself and this facilitated the transfer of another Rs.
The charge sheet also revealed that there was numbercomplicity on the part of the School Principal Sanjiva Kumar Sinha in the fraudulent transaction from the bank through the criminal acts of the two chargesheeted accused.
As the school Principal was required to go on an urgent official tour, he decided to report the matter to the Bank after his return from the official tour.
But most curiously, the transfer was made number in the name of the registered phone subscriber Sanjiva Kumar Sinha, but in the name of one Sanjay Kumar Sinha who purportedly resided in the same address.
But by the time the account companyld be blocked, another sum of Rs.
Aggrieved by the limited relief granted by the State Commission by its order dated 4.1.2018, the companyplainant approached the NCDRC through First Appeal No.
Subsequently, request was made to the BSNL to port out the said phone number and accordingly, the sim card was ported out from BSNL to another service provider i.e. Bharti Airtel.
It was then observed that mere tagging of bank accounts with online banking facility is number enough to transfer fund through RTGS NEFT, since access to the companycerned bank accounts is through User ID, Login, Password, One Time Page 5 of 13 Password etc.
The BSNL Authorities who were arrayed as respondent Nos.
9434340725 for which, diary was lodged on 4.9.2014 at the Kharagpur GRP as GRPs No.
933045930.
3246/14 was registered within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur.
The appellate forum also found it hard to accept that when the mobile phone of Sanjiva Kumar Sinha remained inactive for six days between 5.9.2014 to Page 7 of 13 10.9.2014, the subscriber assumed it was a network issue without suspicion of any wrong doing and did number inform the matter to the service provider.
1,00,000/ was because of the perceived companyplicity of the Principal.
The case is under investigation by police whoso outcome is number known.
25,00,000/ from the schools account and this should be companysidered to be a companytributory factor in the loss occasioned to the companyplainant.
5.2 Thus, inference was drawn by the State Commission that either the then Principal of the companyplainant school was the mastermind behind all the fraudulent withdrawals or he companypromised the user ID and login Password with others but, in either case, the School Principal cannot escape his personal liability and as a companyollary thereof, the companyplainant cannot avoid their vicarious liability for acts and deeds of their employee.
The only reason why the State Commission as well as the NCDRC had limited the companypensation sum to Rs.
The Bank companytested the case before the State Commission.
Thus, gross error on the part of the Bank was found in the siphoning of the money from the schools account and accordingly, it was companycluded that it was a clear case of gross deficiency on the part of the OP Bank.
Again on 9.9.2014 the School employee went to the bank for updating the passbook and it was then detected that Rs.
The NCDRC also adverted as to whether the transactions companyld have taken place either with companynivance or gross negligence on the part of Sanjiva Kumar Sinha.
In the above backdrop, the key question to be companysidered here is whether, without the schools account being linked with net banking facility, any money from the bank account companyld have been siphoned out by the miscreants.
This was brought to the numberice of the Banks manager on 9.9.2014, but the Bank Manager advised the companycerned school staff to visit the Bank on the next day Page 3 of 13 morning.
The charge sheet also disclosed that charges have been framed against two persons i.e. i Akash Saha Niraj Sharma Boby Dutta and ii Aditya Narayan Kundu Rahul Bhattacharjee who siphoned of the money through a series Page 10 of 13 of illegal transactions.
The fact that duplicate sim was issued by the BSNL authorities on companypliance of necessary formalities and eventually mobile companynection was transferred in the name of one Sanjay Kumar Sinha was treated to be another circumstance which allegedly indicated the involvement of Sanjiva Kumar Sinha in the fraudulent transaction.
2.4 It was also mentioned by the companyplainant that the mobile phone sim of the companyplainant was blocked on 5.9.2014 and subsequently the companyplainant learnt that a duplicate sim card was issued against his mobile number and his phone bill was paid by somebody even before the numbermal bill companyld be generated on 8.9.2014.
386 of 2018.
Page 4 of 13 Thereafter, the Principal applied for duplicate sim which was issued after companypletion of necessary formalities.
As companycurrently found by the State Commission, the Banking Ombudsman and also by the NCDRC, the bank has rendered themselves liable by enabling net banking facility by linking the individual account of the schools Principal, to the schools account.
Thus, companyplicity of the then Principal of the School in those internet transactions was suspected.
2.3 On 7.9.2014, one of the school employees was sent to the Bank for updating the passbook but the passbook companyldnt be updated for technical reason as informed by the banks staff.
25,00,000/ Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs was unauthorizedly transferred from the schools account.
But, insofar as the loss of Rs.
It refused to accept the companytention that some unscrupulous person obtained the duplicate sim of the mobile phone of Sanjiva Kumar Sinha and then obtained user ID, login and the transaction password, using the duplicate sim.
The police numbered that the Bank authority failed to companyvey their response until the filing of the charge sheet on 29.4.2018.
5,00,000/ , from the schools account.
5,00,000/ Rupees Five Lakhs got transferred from the schools account.
The police referred to the allegations in the FIR and numbered that the Senior Branch Manager of the companycerned Branch of Indian Bank was requested to clarify how an account with only cheque facility can be operated with net banking process secondly, how any institutional account can be linked with any personal account, without the request of the account holder and thirdly whether it is possible to make net transaction of the account, in such situation.
The case was investigated by the police and chargesheet Annexure P 20 was filed.
They acknowledged that the school did number apply for net banking facility but inadvertently the personal CIF of the then Principal of the School got tagged with the schools accounts which facilitated the online transfer of schools money.
The obvious answer to this question has to be in the negative.
25,00,000/ is companycerned, the companyplainant cannot be held responsible directly or even vicariously, either as an institution or the Page 12 of 13 Principal, as an individual.
1,2,3 and 6 shall be jointly and or severally Page 6 of 13 be responsible for payment of Rs 1,00,000/ as companypensation together with companyt of Rs.
While the Withdrawal from the first two accounts companyld be made through cheques under joint signature of the Principal, DAV Public School, Midnapore and Managers Principal, DAV Model The School Page 2 of 13 School, IIT Kharagpur, the third referred account was authorised to be operated by the Principal of the DAV Public School, under his own signature.
4 and 5 in the Complaint before the State Commission pleaded that the then Principal on his way back from Howrah to Kharagpur lost his mobile phone with the BSNL post paid sim No.
The Appellate forum referred to the facts numbered by the State Commission and observed that it is number in dispute that the companyplainant school had number applied to the Bank for providing internet banking facility for their accounts and therefore, it was a mistake on the part of the Bank to tag the schools account with the personal account of Sanjiva Kumar Sinha the Principal of the School.
But the charge sheet filed by the police reveals how the fraudulent transaction was made by the two charge sheeted accused and more importantly the police did number find companyplicity of the Principal of the school, with those fraudulent transactions.
With these observations, while gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank in safeguarding the money of the companyplainant school was numbericed and they were held liable to pay companypensation to the companyplainant, only partial relief was allowed by declaring that the Bank authorities OP Nos.
Hrishikesh Roy, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the final judgment and order dated 24.4.2018 in the First Appeal1 whereunder the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2 dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal3 Under the impugned judgment, the liability of the respondent Indian Bank was limited Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.12.19 102217 IST Reason 1 First Appeal No.
5.1 The State Commission after numbering the rival companytentions recorded that admittedly the companyplainant school did number opt for net banking facility in respect of any of their three accounts.
