Date of filing:11.07.2022

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:19.09.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:19^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

PRESENT

Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.1333/2022

O R D E R

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by OP Nos.1 and 2 in CC/329/2021 on the file of I Additional DCDRC, Bengaluru, aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2022.  (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission)

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsel for appellant and R1 who is a party in person. 

3. Now the question that arise for consideration of the Commission would be:

Whether impugned order dated 27.05.2022 passed in CC/329/2021 does call for an interference of the Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

4. Brief facts to be record herein to decide the appeal would be stated that Respondent No.1 herein had raised a Consumer Complaint before the District Commission, as an account holder of OP1/appellant bank being a customer/consumer.  He is a retired professor of Botany from Bangalore University, had extended the pension benefits to his SB Account No.54047052602.  He received gratuity amount   to his SB account.  He has stated that on 11.03.2019, he had requested OP1 Bank to transfer Rs.25,00,000/- to his account with Syndicate Bank, Yadavanne Branch, Kunigal Taluk.  However, it was not transferred through RTGS and when such amount had not been received to his account with Syndicate Bank, was brought to the notice of OP1 Bank. Thereafter, he went to his native place, where had no mobile networking facility. He was busy with agricultural activities in his native place returned to Bengaluru, went to OP1 Bank on 30.04.2019 to verify the account found no amount in his account.  He immediately got the details of the transactions held between 12.04.2019 to 30.04.2019 found withdrawal of Rs.12,93,922/- from his account by hackers,  was also brought to the notice of manager of OP1 bank, who informed him to file a complaint with police.  Accordingly, he lodged complaint with Gnanabharathi Police Station and obtained an endorsement to that effect.  He also lodged a complaint with Cyber Crime Police Station on 17.05.2019 and also to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru.  He had alleged against Ops attributing negligence Rs.12,93,922/- was hacked by hackers. He   had alleged against Ops, had they transferred Rs.25,00,000/- to his account with Syndicate Bank, the situation would not have arisen.  The Complainant had also taken this matter to banking Ombudsman, who had dismissed his complaint on the ground; complainant had shared Aadhar Number and OTP despite publishing advertisement in daily newspaper and sending SMS to the account holders not to share Aadhar Number, OTP, TOPTP and MPIN to anyone.

5. The above complaint was contested by OP Nos.1 and 2 through their counsel, contending that internal Ombudsman, rejected the complaint of the complainant by recording sound reasons and while fraudulent transactions took place between 12.04.2019 to 30.04.2019, the complainant had received SMS messages on real time basis with regard to those transactions but the complainant had ignored those messages till 30.04.2019 and he was negligent and his complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.  In view of rival contentions, District Commission held an enquiry, received affidavit evidence of complainant along with Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and affidavit evidence of Branch Manager of OP1 Bank along with Ex.R1 to R11. After closure of enquiry, the District Commission proceed to hold OP1 is liable to reverse the amount of Rs.12,93,922/- along with SB rate of interest prevailing between 12.04.2019 to 30.04.2019 till payment of the entire amount calculating from each day of debit from the account of the complainant and to pay damages of Rs.25,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days.  It is this order is assailed in this appeal contending that the finding recorded is highly erroneous, contrary to law and facts, is liable to be set aside.  The District Commission had failed to appreciate the reasons recorded by internal ombudsman and admission of complainant about his sharing of Aadhar Number and his failure to reply to the SMS messages sent to his account.  The Complainant had ignored those messages till 30.04.2019.  He reports the alleged fraudulent transaction after 07 working days and as per guidelines on Customer Compensation Policy customer is fully liable for the value of transaction and the Ops neither   negligent nor liable to reverse the amount sought in the complaint.

7. It is not in dispute that complainant had SB Account bearing account No.54047052602 and as a retiree had received pensionary benefits to the said account, had transferred Rs.25,00,000/- through RTGS to his account with Syndicate Bank, Yadavanne Branch, Kunigal Taluk.  According to him, had OP transferred Rs.25,00,000/- to his account, question of fraudulent transactions occurred between 12.04.2019 to 30.04.2019 for Rs.12,93,922/- from his account would not have arisen. As per the details obtained from OP1 bank on 30.04.2019, he found transfer of Rs.1,50,017/- on 15.04.2019 through NEFT to Abhishak Sharavath vide cheque No.034229 and on the same day he withdrawn cash of Rs.1,50,000/- vide cheque no.034230 and Rs.80,350/- vide cheque No.034231 .  Thus so far Rs.1,50,017/- + Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.80,350/- respectively are concerned admitted that between 12.04.2019 to 30.04.2019  OP1 bank had rightly debited such amount to his SB account, since they are all done through issuance of cheques. However, he has   disputed withdrawal of Rs.12,93,922/- and  alleged it was negligence of  Ops, since,  they have transferred  amount  to the hackers, without prior notice, which he had reported to OP1 bank. He got details of the account particulars on 30.04.2019, only  after visiting the  branch, moving from his village situated in Kunigal Taluk.  According to him   had reported to the OP1 about the fraudulent transfer of money from his account within 03 days from the date of his notice about fraudulent transactions occasioned by hacker from 12.04.2019 to 30.04.2019.  We found from the impugned order passed by the  District Commission, about,  incorporation of the reasons recorded by internal ombudsman as per para-07(a) to 07(f) of which para-07(c) – “Hence may be the remitter would have shared the OTP with the fraudster, hence the transactions was initiated by the fraudster.” and as per para-07(f) – “The customer has also mentioned in his letter/statement that he has shared the Aadhar number with the fraudster.”  It is not in dispute that he had lodged complaint with Gnanabharati Police Station as well as Cyber Crime Police Station at Bengaluru.  According to OP bankers, customer had neglected and ignored the SMS messages till 30.04.2019. However, it has come in the enquiry, complainant had not installed net banking app and  is using  cheque leaves  and the ATM card.   Learned counsel for appellant submits that due to negligence on the part of complainant, since had shared the Aadhaar details fraudulent transactions had taken place which in our view could not be acceptable, since he had admitted about the cheque transfers and withdrawal of cash and had disputed debit entries amounting to Rs.12,93,922/-, which are fraudulent transactions took place between the  period stated above.  It is to be noted herein the District Commission, while appreciating Ex.R8, found the statement of complainant, some unknown person introduced himself as   manager of the bank and sought the details of the Aadhar card which the complainant had furnished cannot be termed    revealing the account details, could be appreciated and held, recorded with sount reasons considering the fact that complainant had not installed SBI YONO Banking App for transfer of money through online but had always used  cheque leaves not only for transfer of money from his SB account to other accounts but also to withdrew cash. In such circumstances, mere showing of Aadhar number to the so called Manager who said to have been introduced himself as Manager, cannot give access to the bank account details of the customer / complainant, to transfer money from the his account to the account of fraudsters or hackers as the case may be. In this regard, the District Commission has to be held rightly appreciated the materials on record and recorded with sound reasons, that the Government of India as well as RBI directed the customers to link the Aadhar card to the bank account and also the PAN is no more a personal information. In the recent past  linking Aadhar number and PAN number made mandatory  even to purchase gold or silver or a product valued exceeding Rs.50,000/- by department of tax. In order to avail certain government facilities such disclosure made it compulsory. We have to take notice of the fact that in Government of Karnataka made travel across the State in KSRTC and  in  BMTC buses by women without fare disclosure of information of Aadhar number is made mandatory. It is therefore, mere  revealing Aadhar number by the complainant to a person who had come to him pretending as manager of the bank did not give access to the fraudsters to transfer huge money amounting to Rs.12,93,922/- could be said right perceiving of the facts placed before the District Commission. The amount transferred from the account of complainant is not a meager amount but was major portion of his gratuity received from government after his retirement. It is therefore, the contention of appellant/OP that complaint had  lodged complaint beyond 07 days after fraudulent transactions, liability of bank is zero and the complainant alone has to bear the loss could not be acceptable as such we are of the view it was rightly negated by the District Commission by recording sound reasons. The District Commission rightly held the complainant had reported fraudulent transfers from his account with OP1 bank on 02.05.2019, within 03 days from the date of his knowledge as to the fraudulent withdrawal of the amount of Rs.12,93,922/- when had obtained the details from the Bank on 30.04.2029.  As per RBI guidelines the liability on the part of complainant is zero and the banker is liable to make good such loss occurred with the intervention of 3^rd party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but elsewhere in the system and when the customer notifies the bank within 03 working days of received the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorized transactions, liability of customer is zero. Since, the case on hand, as complainant had reported the fraudulent transfer of money from his account within 03 days after he got details  of his account from 12.04.2019 to 30.04.2019 on 30.04.2019, as such the DCDRC in para-23, had referred the said circular bearing  DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 and rightly, held non-reversal of fraudulent transactions from the account of complainant amounts to rendering deficiency in service on the part of Ops,  cannot be said either contrary to facts or law does call for an interference.

8. In our view, as the enquiry reveals that the complainant  being senior citizen and a customer of OP1 Bank, since long ago, had always used cheque leaves to withdraw money and transfer money from his account to others could not be said had shared OTP to transfer money from his account to the account of the fraudsters.  One has to expect SBI has to discharge its banking functions as per RBI guidelines and in particular as per the circular referred by the District Commission while passing the impugned order and in such circumstances, when complainant had lodged complaint with OP bank about fraudulent transfer and had also lodged complaint with Gnanabharathi Police Station as well with  Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, Ops are bound to follow the guidelines of the RBI to reverse the transfer of such money from the account of the complainant to the account of the fraudsters.  It has come in the enquiry that fraudulent transfers were occasioned from the account of complainant through UPI and PAYTM Payment Bank and Airtel Payment Bank which were forwarded to the complainant, as such in such circumstances in our view it may not be difficulty for the bank like SBI to assist the Cyber Crime Police and Gnanabharathi Police in investigating the case of fraudulent transfer of money of Rs.12,93,922/- from the account of complainant and to trace the fraudusters to send them behind bar to give message to similar such fraudusters not to indulge in such matters. In other words, it may not be difficulty for the Bank, PAYTM Bank and Airtel Bank to locate, where such transactions of money were taken place from the account of complainant to the account of fraudsters.

9. We have found from the enquiry, it is all being done through online or internal or in the banking system itself, since investigation is still pending, in such circumstances, OP banker cannot wash their hands on any of the technical reason to throw the liability on the complainant contending that their liability in the case is zero, since the fraudulent transfer of complainant had brought to their notice 07 days after such transfer. In such considered view, we   did not find any grounds to interfere in the impugned order passed by District Commission.  Hence, Commission proceed to dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

10. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to District Commission for needful.

11. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for their information.

        Lady Member                                  Judicial Member             

*GGH*