STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 292 of 2025 Date of Institution : 17.10.2025 Date of Decision : 26.02.2026 Dr. Vikas Mehra resident of House No.1501, Sector-33-D, Chandigarh-

160033 …..Appellant/Complainant VERSUS

1. State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, GMCH Branch, Sector-32, Chandigarh-160032

2. State Bank of India through its Chairperson, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 …..Respondents/Opposite parties BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER Mr. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:

Sh. Mahesh Kumar Jindia, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Ish Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The complainant – Dr. Vikas Mehra (appellant herein) has filed the instant appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 vide which the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short ‘District Commission’), has dismissed his consumer complaint bearing No.73 of

2025 by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

2] The case of the appellant/complainant before the District Commission was that on 09.01.2024, when he visited to the official website of the respondents/opposite parties for making the transaction in his Mutual Funds Account, link regarding verification of eCKYC appeared on the screen and by believing on the said link to be genuine, he clicked that link and appalled to know when an amount of ₹49,997/-stood withdrawn/deducted from his Current Account No.35140495516 in the name of AD Diagnostics and Physiotherapy being maintained with the branch of respondent No.1/opposite party No.1. He immediately reported the issue to respondent No.1 but the respondents did not pay any heed to his request. He also reported the matter to the Chandigarh Police through its online portal (Integrated Complaint Management System) vide Ref No.ICMS/2024/000982 on 10.01.2024 but nothing was done. It was his case that the respondents wrongly denied his claim and he was entitled for the refund of the aforesaid amount as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. He also sent a legal notice dated 03.09.2024 to the respondents, to which, vague reply was given by the respondents. Alleging the aforesaid act amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents, the appellant/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3] On the other hand, respondent No.1/opposite party No.1, in its reply filed before the District Commission, pleaded that on receipt of the complaint, internal inquiry was conducted, wherein it was found that the complainant himself shared his login credentials i.e. OTP for the disputed transaction. Respondent No.1 placed on record of District Commission, copy of SMS delivery report dated 9.1.2024 proving that the said OTP was successfully delivered to the complainant and the said transaction was only completed when he used the said OTP. It was further pleaded that the complainant could not approach the Commission for its own wrongs as from Exhibit C-1, it stood proved that it was an IMPS transaction.

4] However, opposite party No.2, despite proper service, failed to appear before the District Forum, and as such, it was proceeded against ex-parte by the District Commission vide order dated

16.05.2025.

5] The complainant filed rejoinder before the District Commission wherein he reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and repudiated those as stated in the reply of opposite party No.1.

6] The contesting parties led evidence in support of their respective cases before the District Commission.

7] The District Commission, after hearing arguments and considering the documentary evidence on record, dismissed the consumer complaint as stated above.

8] The order has been assailed by the appellant – complainant on the grounds that once timely notice of unauthorized transaction was given to the respondents,