Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/215/2022

Surajbhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Shiv Kumar

09 Jul 2024

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

 

                                                        Complaint Case No. 215 of 2022

                                                        Date of Institution: 16.09.2022            

                                                        Date of Decision:    09.07.2024    

         

          Suraj Bhan S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, R/o Village Dudhwa, Tehsil & District Charkhi                 Dadri, Mobile No.9416632031.

                                                                                                                   …Complainant

 

                                                          VERSUS

 

1. State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, Madama Cama Marg, Mumbai-21 through Chairman.
2. Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Hota; Sangrilla, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
3. Branch Manager, State Bank of  India, Charkhi Dadri.

 

                                                                                      …Opposite parties

                                                Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

 BEFORE:            Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal…………………... President

                             Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla…………….,……Member.

 

 PRESENT:           Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

                             Sh. K.S.Chhikara, Advocate for the opposite parties

 

ORDER:

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The brief details of facts, as alleged by the complainant in the complaint in hand, are that the complainant is maintaining a Bank Account No. 55075797453 with OP Bank viz. State Bank of India, Charkhi Dadri.  It is alleged that the amount of Rs.38,000/- was debited  from the bank account of complainant on 17.12.2019 through UPI/DR/935138454185/D.sukade/SBIN/101113 099463162095 and brought into the notice of OPs vide letter  dated 20.12.2019. The complainant had mentioned that he neither withdraw any amount through ATM nor created any UPI ID for any payment, but amount of Rs.38,000/- was debited. It had caused the complainant panicky, he immediately contracted the OPs but till date no action has been taken by the OPs.  It was further mentioned  by  the complainant that the   amount of    Rs.  25,010/- was  again  debited  from the bank account of complainant on 09.04.2020 through UPI/DR/010066220695/Sulekha/BARB/4907010 097858162091. This time also, the complainant neither withdraws any amount through ATM nor created any UPI ID for the said payment. Complainant made a written statement on 10.04.2020 before the OP no.3 but till date no action has been taken. The complainant has been waiting for a long time for the necessary refund of both the amounts fraudulently withdrawn from his account.  It was further submitted that the complainant had served a legal notice upon the opposite party but the opposite party did not reply the same. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounted to deficiency in service. The complainant had averred that, the OP no.3 vide letter dated 13.05.2022 stated that competent authority has rejected his claim of Rs.38,000/- & Rs.25,010/-. The conduct of OPs informing the complainant out-rightly denying their responsibilities amounts to cheating and unfair practice of trade which is illegal and violative of the complainant's rights. The complainant was totally frustrated and disgusted by the aforesaid acts of unfair practice of   trade, and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The above facts and circumstances clearly and equivocally showed that the opposite parties are employing unfair trade practices causing undue loss to the     complainant. Hence this complaint.
2. Accordingly, notice was issued to the OPs who filed its reply stating that the present complaint is gross misuse of the process of law for unjust gains and the Complainant has misrepresented the material facts before this Hon'ble Commission and has come to this Hon'ble Commission with unclean hands for seeking unlawful gains in unlawful manner and to harass OPs. The OP has further stated that the OP Bank or any of its officials are not involved in any wrong doing.  The OPs did their every effort regarding the alleged disputed transactions and send the emails to all the concerned authorities for enquiry and investigation of these alleged transactions and it was found by the authorities that these transactions had taken place only because of the negligence of the complainant and accordingly the complainant was informed  by OP no.3 vide letter bearing reference no. BM/2022-23 dated 13.05.2022 conveying their inability to stating that no transaction in  UPI can happen without sharing of credentials/device by the customers. As criminal angle is involved, therefore, he should have lodged complaint disclosing all facts with police station immediately but he did not do so. Complainant either due to sheer negligence or clever design has let some unknown person defraud him and is    mischievously and dishonestly trying to get unlawful and unfair gains by stating bald, false and concocted story put forth to seek unlawful gains to which she is not entitled at all in facts of the case. The Bank cannot be made liable in the matter in any manner, whatsoever.
3. To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to Ex.  C9 and closed the evidence on 02.02.2023.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. RW1/A, and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 31.10.2023.
5. However, on perusal of the reply submitted by the OPs, it has been seen that the OPs has also tried to shift the responsibility of these fraudulent transactions upon the complainant alleging that no transaction in  UPI can happen without sharing of credentials/device by the customers, while no proof  for the same  has been produced or placed on record in this regard.

In this connection this commission prefers to refer, the instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India videDBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated 06.07.2017 regarding “Consumer Protection- LimitingLiability of Customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions” which are relevant in the matter. The applicable clauses of the said RBI circular are reproduced below:-

•  

1. Zero Liability of a Customer

            6. A customer’s entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorised transaction              occurs in the following events:

1. Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the         transaction is reported by the customer).
2. Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised transaction.

2. Limited Liability of a Customer

7. Acustomer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorised transactions in the following cases:

1. In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorised transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorised transaction shall be borne by the bank.
2. In cases where the responsibility for the unauthorised electronic banking transaction lies neither with the bank nor with the customer, but lies elsewhere in the system and when there is a delay (of  four to seven working days after receiving the communication from the bank) on the part of the customer in notifying the bank of such a transaction, the per transaction liability of the customer shall be limited to the transaction value or the amount mentioned in Table 1, whichever is lower.

 

 

 

Table 1
Maximum Liability of a Customer under paragraph 7 (ii)
Type of Account	Maximum liability (₹)
BSBD Accounts	5,000
All other SB accounts Pre-paid Payment Instruments and Gift Cards Current/ Cash Credit/ Overdraft Accounts of MSMEs Current Accounts/ Cash Credit/ Overdraft Accounts of Individuals with annual average balance (during 365 days preceding the incidence of fraud)/ limit up to Rs.25 lakh Credit cards with limit up to Rs.5 lakh	10,000
All other Current/ Cash Credit/ Overdraft Accounts Credit cards with limit above Rs.5 lakh	25,000

 

Further, if the delay in reporting is beyond seven working days, the customer liability shall be determined as per the bank’s Board approved policy. Banks shall provide the details of their policy in regard to customers’ liability formulated in pursuance of these directions at the time of opening the accounts. Banks shall also display their approved policy in public domain for wider dissemination. The existing customers must also be individually informed about the bank’s policy.

8. Overallliabilityofthecustomerinthirdpartybreaches,asdetailedinparagraph6(ii)andparagraph7 (iiabovewherthdeficienclieneithewitthbannowitthcustomebulieelsewherithsystemis summarised in thTable 2:

Table 2
Summary of Customer’s Liability
Time taken to report the fraudulent transaction from the date of receiving the communication	Customer’s liability (₹)
Within 3 working days	Zero liability
Within 4 to 7 working days	The transaction value or the amount mentioned in Table 1, whichever is lower
Beyond 7 working days	As per bank’s Board approved policy

 

 

The number of working days mentioned in Table 2 shall be counted as per the working schedule of the home branch of the customer excluding the date of receiving the communication.

Reversal Timeline for Zero Liability/ Limited Liability of customer

9. On being notified by the customer, the bank shall credit (shadow reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorised electronic transaction to the customer’s account within 10 working days from the date of such notification by the customer (without waiting for settlement of insurance claim, if any). Banks may also at their discretion decide to waive off any customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transactions even in cases of customer negligence. The credit shall be value dated to be as of the date of the        unauthorised transaction.

10. Furtherbankshalensurthat:

1. a complaint is resolved and liability of the customer, if any, established within such time, as may be  specified in the bank’s Board approved policy, but not exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint, and the customer is compensated as per provisions of  paragraphs  6  to 9 above;
2. where it is unable to resolve the complaint or determine the customer liability, if any, within 90 days, the compensation as prescribed in paragraphs  6  to 9 is paid to the customer; and
3. In case of debit card/ bank account, the customer does not suffer loss of interest, and in case of credit card, the customer does not bear any additional burden of  interest.  Unquote                                                             

6. In the present complaint first transaction for Rs. 38,000/- happened on 17.12.2019 and same was brought into the notice of OPs on 20.12.2019 (Ex.C2) duly acknowledged  by OP no.3 and second transaction for Rs. 25,010/- happened on 09.04.2020 and the same was reported to OPs on 10.04.2020 (Ex.C3) duly acknowledged by OP-3. Both transactions were not carried out by the complainant and same were reported to OPs within three days of the fraudulent transactions after receiving messages for debit of the account. These transactions attract clause 8 (Table 2) of the RBI notification referred to above which provides if the time to report  the fraudulent  transaction from the date of receiving the communication is within three days, then customer’s liability  will be  “Zero”. Accordingly the liability of the complainant becomes “Zero” as he had complied conditions of  RBI Notification referred to above.
7. Taking into consideration the above referred RBI instructions and reply of the OPs, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs have not taken any action to assess the liability of the complainant/consumer in unauthorized electronic banking transaction as per the above discussed instructions of the Reserve Bank of India and has tried to shift the liability on the Complainant on the basis of presumptions that the complainant would have compromised with the security  measures  by sharing credentials/device instead of taking action for stopping the said payment and reversal of the debit entries. The OPs also not taken any action in terms of the above discussed instructions dated 06/07/2017 issued by the RBI to all scheduled banks to protect the Customer’s (who is consumer in this case) interest which proves that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service of the OPs in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.
8. Therefore, we find that complaint deserves merit and the same is allowed. Accordingly following directions are passed to OPs:-

1. To credit the account of the complainant worth Rs.38,000/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand only)  and grant interest thereon @9%  w.e.f.17.12.2019 (when the amount was debited to the account of the complainant)  till  final  payment.
2. To credit the account of the complainant worth Rs.25,010/- (Twenty Five Thousand  Ten only) and grant interest thereon @9%  w.e.f. 09.04.2020 (when the amount was debited to the account of the complainant)  till  final  payment.
3. Besides, the OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

9. The OPs shall deposit the said amount within 45 days from today, failing which OPs shall be the liable to pay further interest on the said amount  @ 12% per annum. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.