Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the Order dated 31-08-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit – II (Central) in C.C. No. 162/2015 whereof the complaint has been allowed.

In a nutshell, case of the Complainant is that, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was arbitrarily transferred from his salary account in between the period 26-11-2012 and 28-11-2012.  As soon as he gained knowledge of such fact on 29-12-2012, he informed the matter to the OP No. 1 over phone and subsequently, as per his advice, lodged a formal complaint on 30-11-2012.  Since no fruitful result emerged out of it, the matter was reported to the Banking Ombudsman. However, since he did not get satisfactory remedy there, the complaint was filed.

By submitting a WV, the OPs submitted that the Complainant himself was responsible for the alleged incidents as unless he divulged the password and other details to any unauthorized person, there was no such possibility of happening of such incidents. 

Decision with reasons

We have heard the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the documents on record.

It appears that there was laxity on the part of the Appellants to implement the direction of the RBI as communicated vide Circular DBS.CO.ITC.BC No. 6/31.02.008/2010-11 dated 29-04-2011.  No doubt, had the Appellants been vigilant and incorporated due safety measures in their system, possibility of such untoward incident could be diminished to a great extent. 

Although the Appellants have squarely blamed the Respondent for the arbitrary transfer of money, no material proof is forthcoming before us to hold the Respondent responsible in the matter.  The matter has already been investigated by the law enforcement agency of the state.  However, they have not submitted anything adverse against the Respondent.  Therefore, we are inclined to accord benefit of doubt to the Respondent.

On the other hand, documents on record clearly establish gross laxity on the part of the Appellant.  In view of this, we feel that the Appellants cannot shrug off their responsibility in the matter. In our considered opinion, it is absolutely immaterial whether the money was transferred on 26-11-2012 or 28-11-2012.  In this case, the entire money was transmitted to the account of the same party, in whose account money was transferred for the first time within 8 minutes of beneficiary addition in contravention of the Regulatory directive.  Significantly, in respect of all the three disputed transactions, various preventive safety mechanisms in respect of internet banking being advised by the RBI was not put in place by the Appellants. There can be no manner of doubt that, had due barrier been created into the system of the Appellants, the miscreant would not find the Respondent such an easy prey.  Therefore, they must own up due responsibility.

For this very reason, we are totally on the same page with the decision of the Ld. District Forum to hold the Appellants liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we exonerate the Appellants from the liability of paying penal damages as ordered by the Ld. District Forum.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellants need not pay any penal damage in terms of the impugned order.  The Appellants shall ensure due compliance of this modified order within 40 days hence.