DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Wednesday the 22nd day of March 2023
C.C.319/2022
Complainant
Subeesh Babu E,
Edakkoth (HO),
Kizhuvana Paramba,
Nallalam (P.O),
Kozhikode – 673 027.
Opposite Parties
Manager,
Catholic Syrian Bank,
Feroke Branch,
Cheruvannur,
Kozhikode – 673 631.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant is holding a savings bank account in the Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Feroke branch. A total amount of Rs.64,656/- was lost from his bank account in 57 unauthorized transactions on 25-03-2022. He registered complaint in the bank, cyber cell, National Crime Reporting cell and RBI Ombudsman. On 13-06-2022 the bank refunded an amount of Rs.26,331/- to him as an immediate compensation. But thereafter there is no further action from the side of the bank. Hence the complaint seeking a direction to the bank to pay the balance.
2. Despite receipt of notice issued from this Commission, the opposite party bank failed to appear and hence set ex-parte.
3. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are:
1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the
opposite party, as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext A1 to A4 were marked.
5. Heard.
6. Point No.1 – The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that on 25-03-2022 he lost a total amount of Rs.64,656/- from his bank account in 57 unauthorized transactions, due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the bank. The bank refunded only Rs.26,331/- to him and the balance amount of Rs.38,325/- is due from the bank.
7. The complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext. A1 is the copy of the acknowledgement issued by RBI CMS team, Ext.A2 is the copy of the acknowledgement issued by cyber cell, Ext. A3 is the copy of the bank statement and Ext. A4 is the copy of the bank pass book.
8. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite party has not turned up to file version. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4.
9. As per Circular No. RBI/2017-18/15 (DBR No. Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18) dated 06-07-2017 of the Reserve Bank of India, the burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorized electronic banking transaction shall lie on the bank. But the bank chose to remain absent and did not participate in the proceedings. There is absolutely nothing to show that the complainant divulged the secret pass word and credentials of his account to anyone. It is the duty of the bank to exercise reasonable care to prevent unauthorized withdrawals from the account of the customers. It is the duty of the bank to ensure full security and set up internal control systems to combat frauds. Any latches in this regard amounts to deficiency in service. In this case, the complainant suffered loss on account of the transactions not authorized by him. Therefore the bank is liable to the complainant for the said loss.
10. In the decision reported in State Bank of India Vs George (2019(1) KLT505) it has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala that “the relationship between a bank and its customer, in so far as it relates to the money deposited in the account of the customer, is that of debtor and creditor”. Further it was held that “a bank owes a duty to its customers to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized withdrawal from their accounts. If the customer suffers loss on account of the transaction not authorized by him, the bank is liable to the customer for the said loss”.
11. From the above discussion, it has to be held that there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the bank and hence the bank is liable to the complainant for the loss of the amount on account of transactions not authorized by him. The bank has already refunded Rs.26,331/- to the complainant. The bank is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.38,325/- to the complainant.
12. Point No.2 : In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
a).CC 319/2022 is allowed.
b). The opposite party is hereby directed to pay the complainant or credit to his account Rs.38,325/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Five only) involved in the transactions not authorized by him, within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
c). No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this the 22nd day of March 2023.
Date of Filing: 18-11-2022.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Ext A1 is the copy of the acknowledgement issued by RBI CMS team,
Ext. A2 – ExA2 is the copy of the acknowledgement issued by cyber cell,
Ext. A3 – Ext A3 is the copy of the bank statement
Ext. A4 – Ext A4 is the copy of the bank pass book.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Satheesh Babu E
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
