Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/505/2023

MEETU SHYAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

REETU THAKUR

04 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Meetu Shyam w/o Sh. D.P. Shyam r/o House no 1361, 2nd Floor, Sector 22-B Chandigarh.

Complainant

Versus

1. Axis bank Ltd, Branch office Quiet Office No 7, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2. Axis bank Ltd, Registered Office Trishul Office, Samartheswar Temple,

Near law garden, Ellis Bridge Ahmadabad 380006  through authorized signatory.

Opposite parties

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is having salary account with OP No.1 and on 24.4.2023  the complainant received SMS Annexure C-1 from  OP No.1 regarding transaction of Rs.19999/-. (hereinafter referred to be as subject transaction). Immediately the complainant visited the office of OP No.1 and informed the official of OP No.1 about the said transaction  and also that she had not done any such transaction and the copy of SMS  is Exhibit
   C-1. The complainant was further advised by OP No.1 to submit written complaint to OP No.1 which was duly submitted by her vide Exhibit C-2. When nothing was done by the OPs, the complainant  again asked the OP No.1 about the status of the complaint and at that time she was informed by the OP No.1 that her complaint has been closed  as the subject transaction was a internet banking. It is alleged that the complaint of the complainant was closed by the OP No.1 without assigning any reason  and the same is lapse on the part of the OPs.  On 24.4.2023, the complainant submitted a complaint with cyber crime cell, Sector 17 Chandigarh  which was replied by the  OPs  and disclosed to cyber crime cell that payment has been credited in the account  maintained by Aggregators Collection.  Copy of complaint and information submitted and supplied by Cyber Crime Cell  is annexed as Annexure C-3 and C-4. On 6.7.2023 the complainant submitted a complaint to RBI and the same was replied by RBI  stating that the complaint of the complainant is closed by citing that it was two factor secured transaction carried out with the help of payment credentials that were confidential to consumer and applicable debit alert was delivered  and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.  In fact the complainant never received any debit alert  and the copy of complaint filed with the RBI and the copy of reply is annexed as Exhibit C-5 and C-6.  In the month of August 2023 it was intimated to the complainant by OP No.1 that her Gmail ID  was changed from
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and  concealment of fact, jurisdiction  and non joinder of necessary party.  On merits, admitted that the complainant is having her salary account with the OP bank  and on 24.4.2023 the subject transaction had taken place and the complainant had lodged complaint with the OPs. However, the said complaint was closed by the OPs as during the investigation process it was found that the transaction has been done by the complainant by using  her payment credentials and authenticated through pin/password. Since the transactions had been processed in a secured environment, the OPs conveyed the complainant about inability  to refund the subject transaction  amount and compensate as per bank policy. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In replication/rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their respective claims the parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the complainant is having her salary account with the OP No.1 bank and on 24.4.2023  the subject transaction of Rs.19,999/-  had taken place from the  account of the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid unauthorized transaction had taken place from the account of the complainant without her knowledge and the complainant is entitled for the relief as  prayed for as is the case of the complainant or if the subject transaction  had  taken place only when the complainant had shared/used the payment credential/OTP  received on her registered mobile number and the complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed.
   2. As per the case of the complainant she never received any SMS/OTP and the complainant had never got any debit alert before the subject transaction rather she had only received SMS from OP No.1 on the relevant date and time  regarding the transaction  of 19,999/-  and immediately she visited the office of OP No.1.
   3. However, a perusal of Exhibit C-1  copy of SMS which has been relied upon by the complainant itself shows that in fact Exhibit C-1  does not speak about the transaction of Rs.19,999/-  from the account of the complainant rather it indicates that in fact OTP was sent to the complainant on her registered mobile number and after sharing/filling the aforesaid  OTP the subject transaction  had taken place. The relevant portion of the said SMS is reproduced as under:-

“4:57 PM

OTP Change category

849735 is the OTP for your transaction for payee - RELIANCE DIGITAL(JIO) for an amount of Rs. 19999.0 through Internet Banking. Do not share with anyone - Axis Bank

4:57 PM

Copy '849735'”

4. Thus the entire case of the complainant stands falsified from the aforesaid SMS  Annexure C-1  which  indicates that  the complainant had received OTP while using internet banking  and the payment credential  was only available with the complainant  on her mobile  and the subject transaction had taken place only when the payment credential i.e. OTP were filled/shared  by the complainant and as such the OPs cannot be held liable  for the negligent act of the OPs.
5. The complainant has relied upon the circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 6.7.2017  but   the case of the complainant is not covered under the  said circular of the RBI as the same does not protect the customer where the loss occurred due to negligence of  complainant/customer  where she had shared the payment credential and the customer has to bear entire loss until he/she reports the unauthorized transaction to the bank but any loss occurring after the report of the unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the bank.  In the case in hand admittedly the subject transaction had taken place before  the matter  was reported by the complainant to the bank.  Thus, it is safe to hold that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.