Nidhi Verma, Member;
1 The complainant Harjinder Singh is a current account holder of opposite party vide account No. 2852201000253. On 12.11.2019, the complainant received a message from bank that Rs. 5,000/- has been debited from his account but actually the said amount was not debited by the complainant from his account and the same was illegally debited by unknown hacker who told the complainant that he is from Club Factory (Online shopping site) and sought the account detail of the complainant to refund his amount of returned articles that was returned by the complainant to Club Factory. It was utter surprise for the complainant that amount of Rs. 5,000/- debited from his account instead of credited the refund amount. After that the complainant immediately informed to concerned bank i.e. opposite party about the illegal act as written above and request to take appropriate action to secure the account of the complainant and in this respect, the opposite party blocked the ATM card of the complainant and the opposite party assured the complainant that now account of the complainant is totally secured and no one can debit the amount from his account. On the same day on 13.11.2019, the complainant received three SMS from your bank that an amount of Rs. 19,999/- at 4.03 PM and Rs. 18,000/- at 4.04 PM and Rs. 400/- at 4.05 PM have been debited from account but again the same was not debited by the complainant from his account. After that, the complainant again approached the opposite party and asked about the illegal deduction from his account that how can anyone debited the amount from his account inspite of request and instructions so made by the complainant to the opposite party. Upon unsatisfied reply so given by the opposite party, the complainant approached the police authority to investigate the mater and in this respect a FIR No. 317 dated 11.12.2019 under Section 420 IPC, P.S. City Tarn Taran. An amount of Rs. 38,399/- which was illegally debited from the complainant is result of negligence on the part of the opposite party and the same falls under the category of deficiency in service on part of the opposite party as the complainant informed the opposite party and requested to secure the account of the complainant much prior to the second illegal transaction, but inspite of request, the opposite party did not perform his duty and from the said facts, it is clear that this is also a gross negligence on the part of the opposite party. The concerned bank is totally liable to pay the amount of Rs. 43,399/- to the complainant as the complainant informed the opposite party within a stipulated period so settled as per the guidelines of RBI. Till today, the complainant is still visiting to the concerned bank for initiating but opposite party did not put ears to the requests of the complainant and has been putting off the matter on one false pretext or the other. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party may be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 38,399/- to the complainant and other charges which were wrongly debited from the bank account of the complainant and prayed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation, Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of Bank statement Ex. C-2, legal notice Ex. C-3, FIR Ex. C-4, Withdraw message on Mobile Ex. C-5, Letter dated 15.2.2020 Ex. C-6, Letter dated 15.2.2020 Ex. C-7.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint against the opposite parties is legally not maintainable. The complainant himself has disclosed the Secret Code/ OTP of the UPI (Unified Payments Interface) to the fraudulent person which is only known to him. The complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts in to controversy. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant himself has admitted the fact that the said amount has been withdrawn by unknown hacker to whom he has given the secret code of the Debt Card. The complainant is having a current account bearing No. 2852201000253 in the name of M/s Kamal Distributors with the opposite party Canara Bank since 23.5.2014. The credentials of the account such as Debit Card Number, ATM PIN, OTP, UPI PIN/ MPIN etc. are known to the complainant. The complainant is fully aware about the said instructions for operation of the account as he is doing the such type of transaction since the date of opening the account. The complainant himself shared the said codes with the unknown person alleged to be hacker resulting thereby the amount has been withdrawn by the said unknown person for which the opposite party bank is not responsible for the same. Every Bank used to issue the clear direction to the account holders not to share any secret code with any person. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been debited in the account of the complainant on 12.11.2019 vide UPI (Unified Payments Interface) transaction No. UPI/931615423707/A. The complainant approached the opposite party Bank on 13.11.2019 with the request to stop the ATM Card. The complainant never disclosed that he has already shared the UPI codes and OTP with the said unknown person alleged to be hacker who had allegedly withdrawn the amount from the account of the complainant. The opposite party Canara Bank has immediately stops the ATM Card of the complainant on the same date i.e. on 13.11.2019 as per request of the complainant. But again the transaction of Rs. 19,999/- vide UPI transaction No. UPI/931716059005/A, Rs. 18,000/- vide UPI transaction No. UPI/931716067368/A and Rs. 400/- vide UPI transaction No. UPI/931716067368/A and Rs. 400/- vide UPI transaction No. UPI/931716075924/A were made from the account of the complainant and the said amounts were debited in the account of the complainant on 13.11.2019. Every UPI transaction is requires PIN Number (i.e. Person Identification Number) which have been provided by the complainant himself for authentication of the transaction and due to this reason the said amounts have been withdrawn by the said unknown person alleged to be hacker. The said transactions were not made from the ATM Card of the complainant but the same have been debited on account of UPI (Unified Payments Interface) transactions. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party Canara Bank and the opposite party Bank is not liable for any kind of alleged fraud allegedly committed with complainant. The complainant has also lodged the FIR No. 317 dated 12.11.2019 with the Police Station City Tarn Taran and the opposite party Bank has already provided the entire record to the police authorities for investigating the matter. The complainant has also lodged the complaint with the Mobile Banking & UPI Management Section, Digital Banking Service Wing, Head office, Banglore but the same has been rejected vide letter dated 29.1.2020. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. The complainant is himself guilty to share the UPI codes/ OTP with the unknown person. The opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as alleged. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record certified copy of statement of account of complainant Ex. OP-1, Attested copy of complaint dated 13.11.2019 Ex. OP-2, attested copy of Charge Bank claim submitted by the Bank Ex. OP-3. The correspondence with the complainant vide e mail Ex. OP-4, copy of complaint by the complainant to the Police dated 19.11.2019 Ex. OP-5, Copy of FIR dated 11.12.2019 Ex. OP-6, Letter to SSP Tarn Taran by the Bank dated 3.1.2020 Ex. OP-7, Letter dated 8.1.2020 Ex. OP-8, Letter dated 31.12.2019 Ex. OP-9, Letter dated 29.1.2020 Ex. OP-10, Copy of Legal notice Ex. OP-11, Reply to legal notice Ex. OP-12.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.
4 In this present complaint , the complainant is current account holder of canara bank vide account No. 2852201000253. On dated 12.11.2019 the complainant received a massage from bank that Rs. 5000/- has been debited from his account but actually the same said amount was not debited by the complainant from his account and the same was illegally debited by unknown hacker , who told the complainant that he is from club factory and asked the account detail of the complainant to refund his amount of returned article but it was utter surprise for the complainant that amount of Rs. 5000/- debited from his account instead of credited the refund amount. After that the complainant immediately informed to concerned bank i.e. OP about the illegal act and request to take appropriate action to secure the account of the complainant and in this respect, the OP blocked the ATM card of the complainant and said no one can debited the amount from his account. On the same day 13.11.2019 the complainant received three SMS from the bank that an amount of Rs 19999/- at 4.30 p.m, 18000/- at 4.04 p.m. and 400/- at 4.05 pm has been debited from the account but again same was not debited by the complainant from the bank. After that, the complainant again approached the OP and asked about the illegal deduction from his account. Later on the complainant approached the police authority to investigate the matter and in this respect a FIR NO.317 dated 11.12.2019 under section 420 IPC,P.S city Tarn Taran . The complainant informed the OP and requested to secure the account of the complainant but the OP did not perform his duty and this is negligence on the part of the OP. OP stated in their written version that the complainant himself disclosed the secret code / OTP of the UPI to the fraudulent person which is only known to him and the OP BANK is not responsible for the same. Every bank used to issue the clear direction to the account holders not to share any secret code with any person. A sum of Rs 5000/- has been debited in the account of the complainant on 12.11.2019 vide UPI transaction no. UPI/931615423707/A . The complainant approached the OP Bank on 13.11.2019 with the request to stop the ATM Card . The complainant never disclosed that he has already shared the UPI code and OTP with the said unknown person . The OP immediately stops the ATM card of the complainant on the same day 13.11.2019 as per the request of the complainant. But again the three transaction vide UPI transaction were made from the account of the complainant on dated 13.11.2019. Every UPI transaction is requires PIN number which have been provided by the complainant himself for authentication of the transaction and due to this reason the said amounts have been withdrawn by the said unknown person alleged to be hacker. The said transactions were not made from the ATM card of the complainant but the same have been debited on account of UPI transaction. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the OP Bank is not liable for any kind of alleged fraud committed with the complainant. Further, the complainant also lodged the FIR NO 317 dated 12.11.2019 with the police station Tarn Taran and the OP has already provided the entire record to the police authorities for investigation. The complainant has also lodged the complaint with the mobile banking &UPI Management section , Digital Banking service Wing ,Head Office , Bangalore but the same has been rejected vide letter dated 29.01.2020. Thus there is no deficiency of the service on the part of the OP Bank.
5 We have gone through the pleading of the parties, perused the record of the learned district forum and heard the argument of the learned counsel for the parties . The complainant approached the OP Bank on dated 13.11.2019 and on very same day the OP blocked the ATM card of the complainant and assured that no one can debited the amount from his bank account. On request of the complainant (EX. OP2) application form signed by the complainant stated to block the ATM card and same has been done by the OP on dated 13.11.2019, 12:50PM (EX. C5) massage received on complainant phone number that – your card number ending with 5786 is hotlisted . Hence , it is wrong and denied that the OP Bank did not perform his duty as alleged . Further, complainant has himself admitted the fact that the said amount has been withdrawn by unknown hacker to whom he has given the secret code/ OTP . As per the bank statement (Ex .OP1 ) a sum of Rs 5000/- has been debited in the account of the complainant on 12.11.2019 vide UPI ( unified payments interface) transaction No. UPI/ 931615423707/A and when the complainant approached the OP on dated 13.11.2019 requested to stop /blocked the ATM card , as an evidence the OP submitted the application form signed by the complainant (Ex.OP 2) . The complainant has requested to block the ATM card , instead of that the complainant has to blocked /freezed his account so that no transactions related to any mode of payment/ method can be done by any unknown person or hacker. As the complainant has already shared the UPI CODE /PIN with the said unknown person alleged to be hacker and even after the ATM card was blocked by the OP on dated 13.11.2019 , three more transactions were done from the complainant account again vide UPI transactions and the same UPI PIN /CODE was already shared by the complainant to the unknown person . Even after sharing the UPI PIN and amount debited on 12.11.2019 of Rs 5000/- , the complainant did not changed his UPI PIN , which was not the responsibility of the bank but the complainant himself can change the UPI PIN to secure his UPI transactions and same was not done by the complainant . Hence , there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP . Moreover , the alleged transactions were debited from the complainant’s account because of the lack of knowledge regarding online process or mode of payment , the complainant himself shared the UPI PIN with the unknown person and the OP is not responsible for the same .
6 In view of the above discussion , let us clearly differentiate the UPI PIN and OTP
- UPI PIN – it is the number you enter whenever you add a new payment account or make a transaction. You will be asked to set a UPI pin when you first add a bank account ,you can use the same UPI PIN for every UPI transaction from different applications like Paytm, Google pay etc . It is permanent pin till you never changed the same , through change your UPI PIN from the application you used .
- OTP – A one time password , also known as a one time pin or dynamic password, is a password that is valid for only one login session . It is temporary secure pin code sent to you via SMS .
The UPI Transaction can be transferred by entering the self generated UPI PIN without the requirement of OTP. The allegation of the complainant that he had not shared OTP for three transactions made on dated 13.11.2019 and the same being fault of opposite party as the complainant blocked his ATM on dated 13.11.2019 at 12:50 P.M. but he himself already shared the UPI PIN which need not to generate every time while making the payment. The complainant himself knows that he shared the UPI PIN, so he need to change that himself.
Hence , the said transactions were not made from the ATM card of the complainant using OTP via SMS but the same have been debited on account of UPI transactions. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is not liable for any kind of alleged fraud allegedly committed with the complainant. Further, the OP has already provided the entire record to the police authorities for investigating the matter ( EX OP 7) . The complainant has also lodged the complaint with the mobile banking and UPI management section, digital banking service wing head office Bangalore but the same has been rejected vide letter dated 29th January 2020 ( Ex . OP10) as the committee is of the view that the transactions are to be treated as authorised transactions and the customer cannot be compensated.
7 In view of the above discussion, it is wrong and denied that an amount of Rs 38,399/- illegally debited from the complainant’s account and is result of negligence on the part of the OP Bank . It is further wrong and denied that the OP Bank did not perform his duty as alleged . It is further wrong and denied that the concerned Bank is totally liable to pay the amount of Rs 38399/- to the complainant . There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP Bank but the complainant himself is responsible for alleged amount has been debited by the unknown hacker to whom the complainant shared the UPI PIN , might be because of lack of knowledge of online payment or in rush of getting amount credited to his account as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the party of the opposite party.
8 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
16.12.2022
