##PAGE1##

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THRISSUR Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member

30^th day of September 2026 CC 494/17 filed on 05/08/17 Complainant : Gopinathan, S/o Madhavan Nair, Parakkat House, Edakalathur, Thrissur. Rep. by POA Holder his sister Mrs. Kamalam, D/o Madhavan Nair, Parakkat House, Edakkalathur P.O., Thrissur.

(By Adv. C. Sivanarayanan, Thrissur)

Opposite Parties : 1. Zonal Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd., G.N. Chetty Road, Office New No.34 (Old No.115-116), G.N. Chotty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 680 017.

2. Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd., Ground Floor, Fair Trade Centre, TUDA Kovilakathumpadam, Thiruvambady P.O., Thrissur – 680 022.

3. Head of Operations, IndusInd Bank Ltd., 3rd Floor, Building No.10, TOWA-BDCF, Ciber City, Gurgaon – 122 001.

4. Head Branch Banking, IndusInd Bank Ltd., 8th Floor, Tower-1, One India Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills Compound, 841 S.B. Marg, Elphinstone road, West Mumbai – 400 013.

(OP 1,3 & 4 Ex-parte OP 2 By Advs. V.R. Jyothish & V.K. Sathyajith, Thrissur)

F I N A L O R D E R

By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :

1) Complaint in brief, as averred :

The complaint is filed under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The 2^nd opposite party is the Manager of a bank branch at Thrissur. The complainant is an NRI and holder of an NRE Account (A/c No. 100009031675) maintained with the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in permitting an unauthorised debit of Rs.4,22,000/- (Rupees Four lakh twenty-two thousand only) from his account and in failing to restore the said amount despite his repeated requests. The 1^st, the 3^rd and the 4^th opposite parties are other dignitaries allegedly responsible for the operations of the bank.

According to the complainant, he had been operating the account through instructions communicated by e-mail, followed by telephonic confirmation. On 28/07/2014, he instructed the 2^nd opposite party to transfer an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to one Mr. Rokey Johnson who was known to the bank, and transfer was effected after confirmation on 30/07/2014. The complainant alleges that thereafter, on 01/08/2014, an amount of Rs.4,22,000/- (Rupees Four lakh twenty-two thousand only) was transferred from his account to an account maintained in the Shillong branch of another bank in the name of a person unknown to him. According to him, he had neither issued any such instruction nor given any telephonic confirmation for the said transaction. The complainant states that he came to know about the transaction only on 04/08/2014 when the 2^nd opposite party contacted him. He immediately disputed the transaction and demanded restoration of the amount. The bank thereafter lodged a complaint before the Police on 05/08/2014, which resulted in registration of Crime No.2356/2014. Despite the same, the bank did not refund the disputed amount. A lawyer notice caused by the complainant statedly evoked no result. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence seeks refund of Rs.4,22,000/- (Rupees four lakh twenty-two thousand only), apart from compensation and costs.

2) NOTICE :

The Commission issued notice to all the opposite parties. The 2^nd opposite party filed his written version and contested the complaint. The other opposite parties having failed to file their written version, proceedings against them were set ex-parte.

3) Version of the 2^nd opposite party :

This opposite party admits that the complainant maintained the said NRE account with them and that the account was enabled for transactions through email, telephone and fax. Their case is that the complainant had been informed of the risks associated with such modes of operation and had executed an undertaking accepting the risks involved. The contesting opposite party contends that the disputed transfer of Rs.4,22,000/- (Rupees F