ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainants against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service for refund of Rs.19,648/- along with interest at 12% per annum and further for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing mental harassment and agony, cost of the proceedings and other reliefs and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; the complainant is an account holder with OP having SB account No.911010019905888 and Debit Card bearing No. 5361 3200 0236 2857, at Kalyananagar Branch. To his shock, on 11.07.2020 while checking her bank account and they realized that on 10.07.2020 there were unauthorized transactions that a sum of Rs.15,752/- has been withdrawn unauthorizedly by NEFT transaction without her knowledge. She did not receive OTP, SMS or emails. On obtaining statement, it was found that amounts were paid to ‘Comewel’ and went to the home branch and raised the complaint bearing No.61547236 with the branch manager. Absolutely no help or assistance from the customer care or reply to the email sent. She also filed a complaint with the cyber crime branch on 23.07.2020 and an FIR was registered in FIR No.0258/2020. She also filed a dispute in the proper form in respect of the fraudulent transaction. Inspite of blocking her debit card net-banking and UPI, one more unauthorized fraudulent transaction of Rs.3,896/-.

3.     She also requested OP to credit the said amount as it was an unauthorized fraudulent transaction. Inspite of it, OP did not credit the same even after several months of complaint being filed. OP has not resolved the issue. Complainant visited many a times to the OP’s branch and inspite of it, OP did not solve the problem and did not provide IP address of the beneficiary. She had to issue a legal notice on 28.12.2020. Same has not been replied. OP has not refunded the money fraudulently withdrawn by unauthorized person which is against to the rules and guidelines laid down by RBI and the guidelines laid down RBI is very clear that if the customer immediately reports fraudulent transaction, then the bank has to file a complaint before the police and if the transaction were found to be carried out without the knowledge of the customer, the amount has to be made good to the customer. Inspite of it, OP has not cooperated with the investigating authorities. The act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint.

4.     Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the commission and filed its version and contended that the complaint is not maintainable in law nor on facts. The complainant is an account holder of their branch and she raised dispute with respect of two transaction occurred on 10.07.2020 for Euro 88.44 each (i.e. Rs.7,839.68 each) in respect of her debit card.  OP further contended that the said transaction had revealed that secret OTP were delivered to the registered Mobile Phone No. 9886408743 and the said transactions were completed resulting that the amounts were debited from her bank account.  Subsequently disputed by the complainant was successful ECOM OTP  and OP had expressed its inability to reverse the disputed amount and said act of the OP perfectly just and legal.

5.     Further on 09.08.2020 the complainant raised a dispute regarding transaction of Rs.3,895/- in her SB account maintained with OP Bank. The above transaction revealed in the investigation that, complainant had shared the UPI PIN with third party and the UPI transaction is successful execution of complainant’s registered mobile number. On 10.08.2020 complainant requested the OP to block the service of her account. On 23.07.2020 complainant lodged a complaint with Cyber Crime Police Station Bangalore and registered the FIR vide Crime No.258/2020. On 22.09.2020 OP has furnished details to the Cyber Crime Police and stated that the said matter under investigation and sub-judice. Further the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint are totally incorrect, false and same are hereby denied and prayed the commission to dismiss the above complaint.  

6.     In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 :   In the Affirmative.

POINT NO.2 :   Partly in the Affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

8.     It is not in dispute that the complainant is an account holder with OP having SB account No.911010019905888 and Debit Card bearing No. 5361 3200 0236 2857, at Kalyananagar Branch. To his shock, on 11.07.2020 while checking her bank account and they realized that on 10.07.2020 there were unauthorized transactions that a sum of Rs.15,752/- has been withdrawn unauthorizedly by NEFT transaction without his knowledge. He did not receive OTP, SMS or emails. On obtaining statement, it was found that amounts were paid to ‘Comewel’ and went to the home branch and raised the complaint bearing No.61547236 with the branch manager. Absolutely no help or assistance from the customer care or reply to the email sent.  He also filed a complaint with the cyber crime branch on 23.07.2020 and an FIR was registered in FIR No.0258/2020. He also filed a dispute in the proper form in respect of the fraudulent transaction. Inspite of blocking her debit card net-banking and UPI, one more unauthorized fraudulent transaction of Rs.3,896/-. The copy of the FIR with Cyber Crime police, the written complaint and Ex P3 the card holder dispute form has been filed. Ex P4 is the legal notice issued to OP. OP in its version contended that the complainant is well educated in internet banking and the act of withdrawal of the amount or payment of the amount has been made using customer ID, net banking password, and has passed on the said details which was only within the knowledge of the complainant and no one has access to do the banking activities. 

9.     No internet banking activity would have taken place without compromising or sharing the customer account details. Further the 3^rd party fund transfer transaction done in the account post inputting of customer ID and IPIN and the same was duly authenticated with OTP which was sent on mobile. Further the beneficiary addition was done in his account and funds were transferred.  The OTP generated and sent to the registered mobile of the which need to be inputted as an additional authentication mechanism. In this case also OTP has been generated and sent to the complainant’s registered mobile and post inputting of the correct OTP, the beneficiary was successfully added into the account.  Further as part of security control of the bank, a beneficiary is activated only post cooling period of 30 minutes of addition and for new beneficiary addition, all transactions are mandatorily to be authenticated with OTP. A maximum of 50000 can be transacted to each beneficiary within 24 hours through or within bank transaction. 

10.   Though OP has taken the contention in the version that the complainant has done online transaction for which OTP is generated and transferred to his registered mobile, in this case the bank has not filed the details of the OTP number generated, shared the same with the complainant’s registered mobile.  The bank has failed to produce those details. What prevented the OP to provide all these evidence to strengthen its stand taken in the version has not been explained. Under the circumstances, we have to hold that the transaction of NEFT from the account of the complainant is not either by complainant or by act of OP, whereas it is the defect lying in the banking system of internet and digital banking service. As per the limited liability of the customer liability in case of unauthorized electronic payment transaction through PPI contributory fraud/negligence/deficiency on the part of PPI including PPI - MTS issuer irrespective of whether or not the transaction is the quoted by the customer, the liability of the customer is zero. If the 3^rd party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the PPI issuer nor with the customer, but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer the PPI issuer regarding unauthorized payment transaction. The per transaction customer liability is such on the number of days lapsed between the receipt of transaction communication by the customer from the PPI issuer of reporting unauthorized transaction by the customer to the PPI issuer within three days of the liability of the customer is zero.

11.   When this directions and guidelines are applied to the facts and circumstances, it is to be noted here that on 11.07.2020 the complainant came to know the unauthorized transaction to an extent of Rs.19,648/-from her account as per Ex P1, she made a complaint on 23.07.2020 and OP who did not take any action.

12.   Hence not reverting the amount to the account of the complainant within the time stipulated by the RBI guidelines i.e. within 10 days/ 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint. As per reversal time line for zero liability / limited liability of a customer under clause 7 and 8 amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we answer POININT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2:

13.   In the result OP is liable to refund / revert / recredit Rs.19,648/- to the account of the complainant with simple interest 3.5% per annum till the said amount is credited to his SB account. Further due to the in action of the OP complainant suffered mentally physically and also to approach this commission for filing this complaint by spending time money and energy.  Hence we are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigations if OP is ordered to pay to the complainant would meet the ends of justice. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed in part with cost.

2.  OP i.e. Axis Bank  represented by its Branch Manager/Authorized signatory is hereby directed to refund/revert/recredit Rs.19,648/- to the account of the complainant with simple interest 3.5% per annum from 11.07.2020 till the said amount is credited to his SB account.

3. Further OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses.

4. OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this commission within 15 days thereafter.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open commission on this day the 23^rd day of DECEMBER 2021)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Financial Statement

Ex P2: Copy of the FIR along with complaint with IP details.

Ex. P3: Copy of the Card holder dispute form

Ex P4: Copy of the legal notice

Ex P5: Copy of the Reply given by the Bank

Ex P6: Copy of the RBI notification.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Sathish Kumar Prahalathan, Deputy Manager and Branch Relationship officer of OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the Notice issued by Cyber Branch police to OP.

Ex R2: Copy of the reply given by OP to the police along with enclosure.

Ex R3: Copy of the Reply given to the notice issued by the counsel for the complainant.

Ex R4: Postal acknowledgement.

Ex R5: Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

RAK*