Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/125/2015

M/s.Ambadi Venugopalan - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Kumer & Basker

04 Jan 2018

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  06.07.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  04.01.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

THURSDAY  THE 04^th   DAY OF JANUARY 2018

C.C.NO.125/2015

Mr.Ambadi Venugopalan,

Flat No.583/584, Arihant Majestic Towers,

216, J.N.Salai, Koyambedu,

Chennai – 600 107.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

..Vs..

1.ICICI Bank Limited,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

A-78, Plot No.3211,

3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 102.

2.ICICI Bank Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

ICICI Bank Tower, Plot No.C-15,

G-Block, Near Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051.

Date of complaint                                       : 25.08.2015

Counsel for Complainant                            : M/s.Kumar & Baskar, K.Senthil

Counsel for Opposite Parties                         : M/s.K.Moorthy, S.R.Sundar

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,14,921/- towards claim amount and render justice u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is a Non-Resident Indian and has Bank Account in the opposite party branch vide account Nos. 602701250466 and 602701250468. He received a mail on 04.11.2014 from the opposite party and called certain details in respect of alert about deactivation of his account. As he suspected the genuineness of mail, immediately he forwarded the mail to the Anti Phishing Department of the opposite parties and received a reply from them that it is not a spam.

          2. On 15.11.2014 a sum of Rs.1,20,465/- was debited from his account and fraudulently transferred to one Mr.Parathasarathy Ghosh vide his account No.249901501509. That time he was at Kerala and immediately he contacted the opposite parties branch at Trichur, Kerala. He also gave a complaint to the Trichur Police Station.  They advised him to prefer a complaint at home branch and accordingly the complainant gave a complaint to the ICICI branch, Anna Nagar and another complaint to the Anna Nagar Police Station.

          3. The hacker had transferred funds from NPNRE Savings account top NRE Savings account for which only user id is required and then from NRE savings account to third party account which requires ATM card grid value. Normally for funds transfer to any third party, a payee has to be registered and an OTP has to be received on customer’s registered e-mail ID. In this instance, no mail or SMS were received by him. On 19.11.2014 the complainant sent a mail again to Anti-phishing Department and marking copies to the customer care of the opposite parties. The opposite parties replied that the complaint has been registered.

          4. The 1^st opposite party advised the complainant on 26.11.2014 to wait till 29.12.2014 and thereafter 12.01.2015, 22.01.2015 and 02.02.2015. On 02.02.2015 the opposite party advised that no online transactions are possible unless the customer compromises his personal identification parameters and hence investigation required by law enforcement authorities and expressed his inability to refund the amount. The complainant sent his reply about his dissatisfaction to the opposite parties that it was not explained how the funds were transferred to an unregistered payee. The opposite party also forwarded mails to the ombudsmen. The opposite parties were well aware about the fraudulent transactions and however kept quite without taking any action. The ombudsman rejected the complainant on 27.03.2015 that the matter requires elaborate documentary and oral evidence.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint for the deficiency committed by the opposite parties to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,14,921/- towards the claim amount and render justice.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE  PARTY AND ADOPTED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties admit that the complainant maintaining an account at the 1^st opposite party branch.  A fund transfer an amount of Rs.1,19,000/- was transferred to one beneficiary Mr.Parthasarathy Ghosh, bearing savings account number 249901500159 and sum of Rs.1,465/- was transferred to Biller Establishment, M/s.Euronet Services India Pvt. Ltd., bearing account number 000405018093 on 15.11.2014. The said fund transactions had undergone three level authentication specifically built in for online transactions. It may be noted that the Login Password, a six digit 3D secured PIN (transaction password) and Grid Card authentication which are known exclusive to the knowledge of the complainant was also required for effecting the said transaction.  Without completing all the verification/authentication steps, no transaction can be done through the internet banking network of the opposite party. Hence, it is clear that the beneficiary was added by the complainant himself.

          6. One Time Password is generated each time, when Customers raise a request while transferring funds through internet banking. On each request the One Time Password is sent to Customer’s registered phone number or registered e-mail address. The customers have option of sending auto generated OTP to his/her registered mobile number or e-mail address. Thus while adding the above beneficiaries the complainant had selected the option of sending OTP to his e-mail address. The above mentioned account was added as beneficiary on 15.11.2014 and the fund transfer also happened on 15.11.2014. It clearly indicates the negligent act of the complainant is not checking his account in a frequent manner.

          7. The opposite parties have been providing prompt and confident service to the complainant for the past 13 years. The opposite parties are one of the leading banking service providers in the industry. The opposite parties never ever compromised on its information security. The opposite parties banking system is one of the strongest organizations that holds an unbreakable networking system.

          8. The fraud came to light when Transaction Monitoring Team of ICICI made routine review of Fund Transfers, and found these transactions to be suspicious. ICICI Bank has an internal mechanism which monitors transactions based on the content provided under the ‘Remarks’ field of the transaction. Based on monitoring and collating of this information on previous frauds, ICICI Bank has compiled a list, which is updated periodically, of suspicious ‘Remarks’. Hence, when a transaction occurs which has a suspicious ‘Remark’, it is reviewed closely by the Transaction Monitoring Team. It is only due to such intricate monitoring system placed by the opposite party, that the opposite party itself could make a tele-call to the complainant on his overseas phone number on 15 November 2014, wherein customer denied making these transactions. At the same time, the customer reviewed his Bank account statement online and thus the complainant was able to understand the fraudulent transaction made in his own account.

          9. In order to safeguard the complainant’s account from further fraud, the Internet Banking ID and password of the complainant were blocked as a Bank induced measure. Even without request from the complainant, the opposite party had frozen the beneficiary account (Mr.Parthasarathi Ghosh). However, the beneficiary had withdrawn the funds from his account before the opposite party could mark the debit freeze on the said beneficiary account. The complainant had made a complaint before the police department regarding the alleged transaction which was pending the opposite party extended its full co-operation to the concerned department in finding the perpetrators of the fraud & recovery of the amount of fraudulent transaction.

          10. The complainant informed that his e-mail account was hacked, since the time he received an e-mail on November 8, 2014 apparently from

11. No fraudulent transactions are possible in the opposite parties internet banking, unless the customer compromises his personal identification. The customer had not registered his mobile number for transaction of debit alerts and hence he could not receive any alert. The complainant registered for debit alerts only on 17.11.2014. The IP addresses used on the date of fraud have detected infinity logins attempted from 4 different geographic locations, viz. Thane in Maharashtra, Amsterdam, Dhaka, & Chittagong. This proves the fact that the complainant had compromised his login credentials on his own. The complainant suppressed the true facts and filed this complaint. The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and hence pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

12. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

13. POINT NO :1        

          The admitted case of both the parties are that the complainant is a non resident India and he is having NRI Account with the 1^st opposite party branch, Anna Nagar vide account No.602701250466 and 602701250468 and in the said account a sum of Rs.1,20,465/- was debited and transferred to one Mr.Parthasarathy Ghosh vide his account No.249901501509  on 15.11.2014 and at that time the complainant was at Trichur, Kerala and immediately on the same day the complainant gave Ex.A5 complaint to the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Trichur  and he also gave Ex.A6 complaint to the Inspector of Police, Trichur East Police Station  and the Branch Manager, Trichur gave Ex.A10  status report to the complainant and on 24.11.2014 the complainant gave Ex.A11  complaint to the Anna Nagar Police and they have registered the case in CSR on 24.11.2014  in Ex.A12  and there after the complainant also gave Ex.A13 complaint to the 1^st opposite party and thereafter the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties.

          14. The case of the complainant is that he had received Ex.A1 mail on 04.11.2014 early morning the opposite parties called for certain details  that  about deactivation of his account, if he fails to respond and hence the complainant forwarded the mail which he has received in  Ex.A2 mail to the opposite parties whether the mail received by him is real or spam and the complainant received Ex.A3 mail from the opposite parties that he has to apply for the upgrade on his account and failed to do the same, he will not be able to login to his online banking account and his account will be terminated and he had also received Ex.A4 mail  dated 08.11.2014 from the opposite parties that the mail is not spam message, this is an upgrade on our internet banking site to enable better security on our  new internet banking system and in the meantime on 15.11.2014 a sum of Rs.1,20,465/- was debited from his account in favour of unknown beneficiary Mr.Parthasarathy Ghosh  account and inspite of complaint given to the opposite parties and also several mails they were unable to solve the fraud committed by a 3^rd  party and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          15. The opposite parties would contend that they were providing prompt service to the complainant past 13 years  and they have goods security system in respect of their customers account and unless this complainant would have compromise his account personal data,  it could not be possible by a third person to transfer funds from the complainant account to an another persons and the transaction is online fraud and since,  the complainant shared his account particulars, the fraud had been committed in his account and hence the opposite parties were not liable for such act and they have not committed any deficiency.

          16. According to the complainant he had received  Ex.A1 mail on 04.11.2014 from the opposite parties called for certain details in respect of alert about deactivation of his account and hence he forwarded that mail to the opposite parties  mail

17. It is the specific case of the complainant that he had forwarded Ex.A1 mail to the NRI Manager mail and also to the anti-phishing department. The opposite parties nowhere stated that the Ex.A1 mail dated 04.11.2014 is not from them. They simply stated that   Ex.A3 mail 05.11.2014 has not been received by the opposite parties. However, they did not say how Ex.A1 mail is not from them. The Ex.A14 mail sent from the nri_manager mail of the opposite parties to the complainant stated that his request through mail is under process and requested him to wait turnaround time. This reply of the opposite parties also proves that the complainant forwarded the mail received by him to the opposite parties. Hence it is taken that the opposite parties only sent Ex.A1 mail to the complainant.

18. Admittedly on 15.11.2014 a sum of Rs.1,20,465/- was debited from the account of the complainant maintained by the 1^st opposite party and the beneficiary is one Mr.Parthasarathy Ghosh. During such transactions the complainant was at Trichur, Kerala and immediately he gave complaint to Trichur Branch and also police and subsequently he gave complaint to the 1^st opposite party branch and to Anna Nagar Police. It is the duty of the opposite parties who are maintaining the complainant account has to provide security. The opposite parties all along stated in the written version that they were providing goods security to the customer’s account. The opposite parties pleaded in para 4 of their written version that the complainant is not checking is account in a frequent manner. The account of the customer/complainant is being maintained by the opposite parties. So, they have to provide security to the customer’s account without any tamper. Merely the complainant had not checked his account frequently is not a fault on him.

19. The opposite parties pleaded in para 5 of their written version that their banking system is one of the strongest organization that holds an unbreakable networking system. The opposite parties further stated in para 6 of the written version that the fraud came to light when  transactions monitoring of ICICI made routine review of      fund transfers and found those transactions to be suspicious. When the opposite parties themselves admits that the amounts debited from the complainant account is suspicious  inspite of their statement that they were providing  unbreakable networking system, only establishes that they have not provided strong security system to the customer’s account.  The opposite parties pleaded in their written version para 11 that from 4 different geographic locations viz., Thane, Amsterdam, Dhaka & Chittagong the logins were attempted in the complainant’s account and hence the complainant had compromised his login credentials on his own. Normally a customer is not expected to share his login address to others. Even assuming that he could have shared his login particulars, it may be one or two persons. Here from 4 different places login was made to the complainant’s account on the same day is unbelievable that the complainant shared his login address to four persons. The login was made from 4 different places to a single account only proves that the security system  provided to safe guard the customer’s account is very week and that is why  fraudulent transactions were done in the complainant account by debiting  a sum of Rs.1,20,465/-. Further the customers’ deposit their money to the opposite parties/bankers in order to keep the same safely. But the opposite parties failed to keep the money of the complainant in his account intact and allowed the fraudulent transactions do happen and thereby the opposite parties have committed deficiency.

20. The opposite parties would contend that it is for the investigating agency to find out the fraud transactions and therefore they have not committed any deficiency in service. The opposite parties admit that it is a fraudulent transaction. No doubt investigating agency has to find out the fraud. The opposite parties have not filed any complaint to the police for investigation. They only knew about their security system provided to the customer accounts. So, the opposite parties are expected to seek the assistance of the investigating agency to find out the fraud. Absolutely they failed in this aspect. On the other hand the complainant preferred complaint to the police shows his bonafide claim. Therefore, the opposite parties failed to take any action to find out the truth that the way in which the amount was debited from the complainant account is deficiency on their part.

21. The opposite parties next contended that the bankers cannot operate their customers account and the account holders only can operate with known password. The complainant had not shared his password to any other person. In such circumstances the amount debited from his account only proves that the security system of maintaining the account is not safety and therefore the contention raised by the opposite parties rejected in this regard.

22. From the forgoing discussions and the conclusions arrived by us above, it is held that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service to the complainant.

23. POINT NO:2

          The complainant claimed an amount of Rs.4,14,921/- at para 24 of the complaint as relief. There is no basis for any evidence to show that how the complainant arrived such amount and how he is entitled for the same from the opposite parties and therefore for such  an amount the complainant is not entitled.

24. Admittedly a sum of Rs.1,20,465/- was debited from the complainant account on 15.11.2014. The opposite parties are the guardian to protect the customer’s money in their account. The opposite parties failed to do the same. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to refund the said sum of Rs.1,20,465/- to the complainant , which was debited from his account. The complainant was having in his account the aforesaid amount or deposited in the bank in a separate account he would have got interest for the said amount. Therefore,  the opposite parties can be directed  to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,465/- with 9% interest from the  date of debit i.e 15.11.2014  to till the date of this order would be the appropriate relief to the complainant. Apart from that the complainant is not entitled to any other claim in the complaint.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.1,20,465/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand four hundred and sixty five only) with 9% interest from the date of debit i.e 15.11.2014 to till the date of this order. No costs.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 04^th day of January 2018.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

                                       …….. NIL …….

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT