DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.C.CASE NO. 41/ 2021
Satyananda Nayak, aged about 65 years,
S/o Late Basudev Nayak, Plot No.4695, Adimata Colony,
PO- Mancheswar Railway Colony, PS_ Mancheswar,
Bhubaneswar, Dist – Khordha
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
1. The Chief Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, IRC Village, Bhubaneswar.
2. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India,
Chandrasekharpur, PO- Sainik School,
Bhubaneswar - 751005
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant : Mr. P.K.Nayak & Associates (Adv.)
For the OP.1 : Mr.A.B.Majhi & Associates (Adv.)
For the OP.2 : Exparte.
DATE OF FILING : 05/02/2021
DATE OF ORDER : 21/06/2023
ORDER
S.TRIPATHY, MEMBER
1. This Consumer Complaint is filed U/s 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019 by the complainant, alleging gross negligence and deficiency in service against the OPs.
2. The brief contention of the complaint is that, the complainant is a Saving bank account holder at the State bank of India bearing account number 33574887094. Also he holds another Saving bank account at the Union Bank of India, bearing account No.380802010016948. On 10/02/2020 at 1.40.38 PM, the complainant received a message as well as a phone call on his mobile phone to activate the KYC of his account. In this process of KYC activation, an amount of Rs.30,198 (20,099 + 10,099) was fraudulently deducted from his SBI account and Rs.5,050/- from UBI account. The complainant intimated regarding this fraudulent transaction to the respective banks and the banks immediately froze his accounts. The complainant further requested the Banks to refund the money to his account which the banks had deducted from his accounts. But the OP banks did not refund the money. Being aggrieved by this, the complainant decided to seek relief from this Commission. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the OP.1 appeared before this Commission and filed his written version, whereas the OP.2 did not appear and subsequently set exparte. Accordingly, exparte hearing against the OP.2 was taken up.
4. The OP.1 has contended in his written version that:- the complainant holds a saving bank account in his bank bearing account No. 33574887094.The OP.1 provided him with ATM/ Debit Card along with debit card manual by registered post, whereas the secret PIN of the ATM card was supplied to him physically in a closed envelope. The complainant was also explained all the necessary precautionary measures like not to share his ATM card number, expiry date of the ATM card, CVV number with any one for the security reasons. Despite all this, the complainant shared his details to a person who became instrumental in making this fraudulent transaction happen. The card of the complainant was swiped in a merchant establishment and after sharing the OTP by the complainant, the transaction was done successfully. So, the transaction made in question took place due to the negligence of the complainant and the bank is not responsible in any way. The bank is always ready and wiling to cooperate but the prime responsibility lies with the complainant to follow the Banking norms and process. Therefore, the complaint against the OP.1 may kindly be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.1.
5. Perused the materials available on case record. it is not in dispute that, the complainant is a saving bank account holder at SBI (OP.1) bearing Account number 33574887094 and at UBI (OP.2) bearing Account number 380802010016948. In both the accounts, a fraudulent transaction took place on the same day resulting on deduction of Rs.30,198/- from the SBI Account and Rs.5050/- from the UBI Account. The complainant intimated to both the Banks and the bank accounts at both the banks were frozen immediately to prevent any further fraudulent transaction. But the complainant did not get back his deducted money for which he is making liable to both the Banks. Now, the question arises whether the OPs are liable for not refunding the deducted amount? The complainant has relied upon the judgment of the NCDRC held in Revision Petition No.3073 of 2016, where the Bank has been held liable for not trying to trace out the transactions at the concerned point of sale. The complainant has also relied upon another judgment of the NCDRC held in Revision Petition No.3182 of 2018, where the ATM withdrawal was involved and the bank was held liable for not tracing out the culprits. However, both the judgments do not squarely apply to the present case in hand. The complainant has further relied upon the RBI guidelines vide No. RBI/2017-18/15 and DBR No. Leg BC-78/09.07.005/ 2017-18 which speaks about a customer’s entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorized transaction occurs in the following events :-
i) Contributory fraud/ negligence / deficiency on the part bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer)
ii) Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within 3 working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorized transaction.
6. After taking into consideration the RBI guidelines, this Commission is of the view that, in the event of an unauthorized transaction, the OPs cannot be held liable if there is contributory negligence on the part of the complainant. Here, in this complaint, the complainant has not followed the precautionary measures advised by the OPs. As a result of which, the fraudulent transactions in question took place. Also, there is no mention in the complaint when did the complainant intimate to the OP banks regarding this unauthorized transactions. However, OPs on getting intimation, blocked the account of the complainant to prevent further fraudulent transaction and advised the complainant to lodge an FIR. In this backdrop, this Commission observes that, there is no deficiency of service by the OPs. Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP.1 and dismissed exparte against the OP.2 being devoid of merit.
The order is pronounced on this day the 21st June, 2023 under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.
(S.TRIPATHY)
MEMBER(W)
Dictated & corrected by me
Member ( W)
I agree
President
(K.C.RATH)
Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno
