CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

Case No.362/2017

Vimlesh

W/o Sh. Desh Raj

R/o   H.No. 2650/64, L-1^st

Gali No.2, sangam Vhar

New Delhi-110080.                                                       …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.

1. The Branch manager

D.C.B Bank

Greater Kailash Part-II

New Delhi

2. D.C.B. Bank Ltd.

Peninsula Business Park

Lower Parel

3. M/s HDFC Ergo General insurance Ltd.

Regd & Corporate Office, 1^st Floor

H.D.F.C. House, 165, 166, Backbay

Reclamation, H.T. Parekh Marg

Church Gate

                                                                                                                           Date of Institution-14.12.2017

                    Date of Order-31.05.2024

O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1.  The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OPs.

2. The complainant is having a saving bank account in OP-1&2 bank bearing No.07021900010779 having an ATM card of the bank bearing No.4835551001057624. 

3. The complainant submits that she used her ATM card on 09.07.2017 to withdraw a sum of Rs.1300/-through ATM at Sarita Vihar.  Thereafter, she had gone to Madhya Pradesh on 09.07.2017 to attend a religious ceremony with her entire family.  On the said visit the complainant used her ATM card on 12.07.2017.  She used her card again on 13.07.2017 and found that only Rs.45/- was left in her account. 

4. The complainant immediately lodged a complaint on 13.07.2017 on customer care number and a written complaint with the manager of OP bank on 14.07.2017.  She also lodged a complaint with P.S. Neb Sarai who issued a D.D. No.26-B dated 14.07.2017.  The complainant submitted a claim form with OP Bank.

5. The complainant states that the mobile phone of the complainant was not working properly during her journey to Madhya Pradesh from 09.07.2017 to 13.07.2017.  She further states that she could not attend any message/SMS messages alerts of transaction in her bank account.

6. OP-1&2 bank filed a claim with OP-3 insurance company who rejected the claim as the said card was not blocked within 24 hours of the receiving the SMS of disputed transaction on 09.07.2017. 

7. The complainant prays for refund of Rs.44,480/- that has been withdrawn from her bank account, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/-, towards litigation expense. 

8. OP-1&2 in its reply submits that the statement of account bearing A/C No.07021900010779 of the complainant clearly shows that the Complainant had been regular visitor of R.D. Motors where she was using her ATM card. The statement of account of the complainant itself shows that she had used her ATM card continuously during the disputed period i.e. 09.07.2017 to 12.07.2017.  The complainant had used her ATM card at POS R.D. Motors on 11.07.2017 for shopping of Rs.200/-.  It is relevant to mention herein that every time the complainant had used her ATM card for any transaction during disputed period, a SMS alert against each such transaction was duly sent to the complainant’s registered mobile No.91-9958281654. The said SMSs were duly delivered.  The complainant blocked her ATM card only after four days from date of such disputed transaction i.e. 13.07.2017. 

9. OP-1 has forwarded her claim to insurance company HDFC ERGO General Insurance for onward action who repudiated the claim.

10. OP-1 alleges that the complainant had used her ATM/Debit Card for different e-commerce transactions, using the details of the card such as card number, expiry date, CVV and ATM card PIN number.  In this regard Clause 7 of RBI circular/guideline dated 06.07.2017 on the subject of ‘Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions’ is relevant.

11. There is a delay of four days in notifying the OPs regarding alleged disputed transaction.  As per the aforesaid clause 7 (ii) of RBI guideline, the liability is limited to the transaction value or the amount mentioned in Table 1, whichever is lower, and as such entire liability is upon the Complainant as none of the transaction is more than Rs.10,000/-.

12. OP-3 in its reply submits OP-1&2 i.e. DCB bank had taken a card package insurance policy bearing no.2999201607003600000. On 18.07.2017,     OP-3 received the claim of the complainant regarding loss of amount of Rs.44,480/-. 

13. It is submitted that the disputed transaction occurred on 09.07.2017, the SMS alerts were received on the same day, but the complainant blocked the card on 13.07.2017.  The claim of the complainant was rejected based on policy condition 7 vide letter dated 18.09.2017.

14. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-

1. Copy of Aadhar Card is exhibited as Ex.CW 1/1.
2. Copy of bank passbook statement of deponent is exhibited as Ex.CW 1/2.
3. Copy of Bank account is exhibited as Ex.CW 1/3.
4. Copy of complaint to manager is exhibited as Ex. CW 1/ 4.
5. Copy of complaint to P.S. Neb Sarai is exhibited as Ex.CW 1/5.
6. Copy of insurance claim form is exhibited as Ex. CW 1/6.
7. Copy of repudiation letter from insurance company is exhibited as Ex.CW 1/7.
8. Copy of legal notice is exhibited as Ex. CW 1/8.

15. OP-2 has filed evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-

1. Copy of authorisation letter is exhibited as Ex.OP-1/1.
2. Copy of statement of account of complainant is exhibited as   Ex.OP-1/2.
3. Copy of details of SMS alert is exhibited as Ex.OP-1/3.
4. Copy of ‘Transaction Beneficiary Details’ is exhibited as Ex.OP-1/4.
5. Copy of RBI circular is exhibited as Ex.OP-1/5.

16. OP-3 has filed evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-

1. Copy of complaint is exhibited as Exhibit RW-3/1.
2. Copy of insurance policy is exhibited as Exhibit RW-3/2.
3. Copy of bank statement of complainant   is exhibited as Exhibit RW-3/3.
4. Copy of card status is exhibited as Exhibit RW-3/4.
5. Copy of email and SMS log is exhibited as Exhibit RW-3/5.

17. The Commission has considered the material and documents on record.  It is undisputed that the complainant has a saving bank account with OP-1&2.  The statement of account from 09.07.2017 to 11.07.2017 indicates that around 15 transactions were done in a disputed manner.  All these transactions were POS i.e point of sale.  The account had a balance of Rs.45.22 on 11.7.2017. 

18. A complaint was lodged with OP-1 & 2 bank who forwarded the claim to OP-3 insurance company.  OP-3 rejected the claim as follows :   “As per the policy Special Conditions (7):

For skimming/phishing/counterfeit card/internet banking extensions-reporting to Bank within 60 days from the statement/billing cycle date.However, this above reporting period will not be applicable where we can establish with documentary evidence that the information of misuse was known to the insured cardholder and he has not taken appropriate steps o prudently block or report the card misusage within 24 hours of such knowledge.This intimation will apply for the cardholder only and not the Policy holder (Bank)”

19. OP-3 has also filed a copy of SMS which were successfully delivered on the complainant’s mobile.

20. OP-1&2 have relied on guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India on 06.07.2017.  Relevant portion of guidelines are as follows : 
21.  

(b) Limited Liability of a Customer

(ii) 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 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)

21. In the light of the aforesaid guidelines, if an unauthorised transaction occurs and the responsibility lies neither with the bank nor with the customer and there is delay of four to seven working days in notification to the bank, the liability of customer is given under Table-1 i.e. Rs.10,000/-or the transaction amount whichever is less in case of saving bank account.  In the present complaint, all the transaction were less than Rs.10,000/-. As per RBI guidelines, the complainant has to bear the liability if the information was given after a delay of 4-7 working days.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP and the complaint is dismissed.

22. Order to be uploaded with 30 days and file be consigned to record room.