DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

     SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

    AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144

              C.C. CASE NO. 27 OF 2019

DATE OF FILING: 26.02.2019                                  DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 29.08.2019   

Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member         :   Jhunu Prasad                            

COMPLAINANT              :  Samir Kumar Bag, S/O – Lakshman Ch. Bag, Village – Chakdaulat, P.S. – Nodakhali, P.O. – Muchisa, Dist. - South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743377. 

• VERSUS   -

O.P/O.Ps                         :  1. UCO Bank, Birlapur Bank, P.O. – Birlapur, P.S. – Nadakhali, Dist. - South 24 Parganas, Pin - 743318.

                                                  2. To the Manager, UCO Bank Birlapur Branch, P.O. – Birlapur, P.S. – Nadakhali, Dist. - South 24 Parganas, Pin - 743318.

_______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

            The epitome of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant runs as follows.

            Complainant as above named maintains a saving bank account bearing no. 03060110079881 with O.P. no. 1 bank. On 30.06.2018 and 02.07.2018 a sum of Rs. 24,329/- has been debited online, phase by phase, from his account without his consent by an unknown miscreant. When he came to know about this unauthorized withdrawal, he reported the matter to the manager and zonal manager of the O.P. bank. But, they did not take any proper step and the sum of money was not credited to the account of the complainant. So, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, the complainant prays for return of the said amount and for payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.

            O.P. nos. 1 and 2 have been contesting the case by filing written version wherein it is admitted that the complainant maintains a saving bank account with the O.P. bank. According to them, 4 numbers of online transactions were made on 30.06.2018 and 02.07.2018 by the complainant. Those transactions failed and the money debited from his account i.e. Rs. 984/- was reversed automatically to the account of the complainant. Thereafter, Rs. 16,990/- and Rs. 4,007/- were debited on 30.06.2018 by way of online purchase of goods from FLIPCART, using debit card and the PIN of the complainant. Further, Rs. 2,348/- was debited on 30.06.2018 for online payment to “PAY U” using debit card and PIN of the complainant. Complainant has not strictly followed the advice of the bank which has always cautioned the customer not to share their debit card no., PIN and OTP with any other person. Complainant has certainly violated those caution and unless those cautions are defied, no one will be able to debit money from customer’s account. It is the negligence of the customer which might have contributed to unauthorized withdrawal of his money, if any. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. bank and therefore the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.

            Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

                                                   POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the O.P. bank guilty of deficiency in service for unauthorized withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

     EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES    

Petition of complaint is treated as his evidence, vide his petition dated 31.05.2019. Similarly, W/V filed by the O.P.s is treated as their evidence, vide their petition dated 19.06.2019.

                                          DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no. 1 and 2 :

            Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, W/V filed by the O.P.s and the materials placed on record by them.

            It goes undisputed that a sum of Rs. 23,345/- was debited unauthorizedly from the account of the complainant, maintained with the O.P. bank. Also undisputed is the fact that a sum of Rs. 984/- has been returned to the account of the complainant automatically. Now only an amount of Rs. 22,361/- remains to be credited to the account of the complainant. According to the complainant he does not know anything about such withdrawal  of money which took place on 30.06.2018 and that he has not shared his debit card no. and PIN with any other person. The money was withdrawn from the account of the complainant on 30.06.2018 and the complainant intimated O.P. no. 1 about such unauthorized transaction on 02.07.2018 i.e. within 2 days of such unauthorized withdrawal of money from his account. A copy of letter dated 02.07.2018 has been produced on record by the complainant and from this copy of letter, it stands established that the intimation of unauthorized withdrawal was the communicated to O.P. bank within 2 days of such kind of withdrawal.

            It has been contended on behalf of the O.P. bank that the money was withdrawn by debit card of the complainant and the PIN of his debit card is known to none but the complainant. So, according to the version of the bank, it is the complainant himself who purchased goods through online having used his own debit card and PIN. The bank cannot be made liable in any manner for such withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant, as goes the submission of the bank.

There is a procedure which is followed strictly by every bank in case of online transaction. Whenever anyone wants to purchase any goods through online, an OTP (One time password) is automatically generated in the computerized system and the said OTP is sent through SMS to the customer in his registered mobile number. When the customer returns the OTP, the transaction becomes complete and the money stands withdrawn from the account of the customer. At the same time, the bank is required to maintain the record of all such OTPs and SMS in order to counteract any grievances of the customer in future. In the instant case, money has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant through online purchase of goods. The version of the bank is that the complainant has purchased goods from FLIPCART and has also made a payment to “PAY U” through online. Regard being had to the version of the bank, we do say that the bank must send an OTP to the complainant before completion of transaction. Bank was asked by this forum to place the record of OTP before it and the bank has also placed such record on OTP before the forum. The record of alleged OTP is reproduced here as follows.

            On perusal of the above table, it appears that the said table does not furnish any information as to the fact that OTP was ever sent to the registered mobile of the complainant before the transaction in question was complete. The table furnishes the information about the completion of the transaction only. It is obligatory on the part of the bank to maintain the record of OTP to counterprove the claim of the customer in future. But, the O.P. bank has not been able to produce any document that OTP was sent to the complainant in his registered mobile before withdrawal of money. In the circumstances, we feel no hesitation to say that no OTP was sent to the complainant in his registered mobile by the bank before the completion of the transaction in question. Inability on the part of the O.P. bank to send the OTP to the complainant in his registered mobile before completion of transaction in question is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. bank. The O.P. bank has been negligent in discharge of its duty.

            Recently Reserve Bank of India has issued a circular, vide DBR. No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated 06.07.2017 and it is laid down in that circular that a customer will have “zero” liability when the unauthorized transaction occurs due to negligence on the part of the bank, provided the customer notified the bank within 3 working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorized transaction, vide clause no. 6 of the aforesaid circular. In the instant case, the complainant notified the bank on 02.07.2018 i.e. within 2 days of unauthorized transaction, vide complainant’s letter dated 02.07.2018 to O.P. 1. Further, the burden of proving customer’s liability in case of unauthorized electronic banking transaction shall lie on the bank as provided in clause 12 of the aforesaid circular. The O.P. bank has not been able to discharge the burden of proof and it has been found upon scrutiny of the materials on record as pointed out above that it is the negligence of the O.P. bank which has contributed to unauthorized transactions with the account of the complainant. The complaint is brought to the notice of the manager of the O.P. bank by the complainant within 3 days and the manager has not been able to solve the problem within the prescribed time. Regard being had to all these, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. bank writ large on the page of record and the complainant therefore is entitled to relief or reliefs which are provided as hereunder.   

            In the result, the case succeeds.

            Hence,

 ORDERED

            That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P.s, but with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

            The O.P.s are directed to credit Rs. 23,345/- to the account of the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant, within a month of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the aforesaid sum by execution of this award through this forum and in that case the refund amount i.e. Rs. 23,345/- and the compensation amount i.e. Rs. 5,000/- will bear interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of unauthorized withdrawal i.e. 30.06.2018 till full realization thereof.

Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.

I/We agree                                                                                                   President

                                        Member

                        Directed and corrected by me

                                                               President