CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/343/10

          Date of Institution:-    22.06.2010

          Order Reserved on:- 06.05.2024

                   Date of Decision:-      14.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. BhavnaKaushal

W/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar,

129, DDA Site-A, Shankar Road,

New Rejinder Nagar, New Delhi

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank

Through its Chairman

Head Office at BhikajiCama Place,

New Delhi-110066

2. The Branch Manager

Royal Bank of Scotland

Gurgaon Branch, Gurgaon (Haryana)

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe is having saving bank account no.062900010025151 with OP-1.On 27.11.2009, a sum of Rs.1,50,010/- has been unauthorizeddebited from his account by two transaction of Rs.1,00,005/- and Rs.50,005/-. On inquiry he came to know that amount has been credited to account no.1543014 of Tejinder Singh maintained with OP-2. The said fishing transaction have been fraudulently done by Tejinder Singh by obtaining  his personal and security detail through illegally and unauthorized embedded link upon which he lodged DD No.27A PS New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. On 28.11.2009, he has informed OP-2 about the said fraudulent transaction and to provide details of the account but in vain. The OP-2 has provided details with the intervention of the IO od DD No.27A that account pertains to Tejinder Singh. The details of the transaction were also provided. There is negligence omission and manipulation by the staff of OP-2. The account opening form shows Tejinder Singh of an employee of Thakur Arts which is his proprietorship firm having separate account with OP-2. The address of commercial complex has been shown as residential address. The fake witnesses have been accepted. Tejinder Singh has given fake documents like electricity bill, salary slip and copy of pan card to the OP-2 and many columns have been left blank. On 21.12.2009, he has written letter to Governor, RBI about the fraudulent and unauthorized acts of OPs with the request to direct OP-2 to transfer a sum of Rs.77,706/- lying in account of Tejinder Singh to his account and also to freeze all the accounts opened with Pan Card No.CBHPS713Q. The OP-2 vide letter dated 18.01.2010 informed that they have frozen the account of Tejinder Singh and Thakur Arts but will not transfer the amount of Rs.77,706/- from the account of Tejinder Singh. A legal notice dated 11.03.2010 was issued to the OPs which was duly replied by OP-2. There is deficiency of service and negligence on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.

2. OP-1 has filed the reply with the averments that complainant has not mentioned any act of omission and commission or negligence or deficiency of service on the part of OP-1. The complainant is having bank account with OP-1. The complainant might have shared his password with somebody due to which unauthorized transaction has taken place. The information security circular no.2/2008 has been issued by OP-1 to create awareness of fishing and same has been pasted in the ATMs as well as in the branches. The fishing transaction has been done by Tejinder Singh for which OP-1 has no role to play. The allegations against OP-1 are false and frivolous.

3. OP-2 has filed the reply with the averments that there is no cause of action in favour of complainant. Tejinder Singh has opened the account no.1543014 with OP-2 in confirmative with rules of RBI. KYC was done. The two transactions were done by the complainant. The OP-2 has never indulged in mode of recovery of unpaid dues through means which are not permissible under the law. OP-2 has collected the amount of transactions after receiving the funds from the OP-1. Tejinder Singh is not a stranger to the complainant. The dispute is still under investigation. The account of Tejinder Singh has been freezed. The required information and documents were given to the IO of the case. There is no nexus of the OP-2 with the account holder.The alleged story set up by the complainant is who have wrongful gain. The allegations are false and frivolous.

4. The application under order 22 Rule 10 CPC filed by the OP-2 as name of ABN Amro Bank has been changed to Royal Bank of Scotland, NB. The said application was allowed and the amended memo of parties filed.
5. The parties are directed to lead the evidence.

6. The complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on documents annexed with the complaint.

7. The OP-1 Sh. R. P. Dhanda, in evidencewherein he has corroborated the version of written statement.

8. The OP-2 AnupanGoyal, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement.

9. We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP-2 as no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant and OP-1 to address the arguments.

10. It is clear from the material on record that complainant is maintaining bank account with OP-1 whereas one Tejinder Singh is maintaining the bank account with OP-2. On 27.11.2009, Two internet transaction of Rs.1,00,005/- and Rs.50,005/- have taken place from the account of the complainant and said amount have been transferred to the account of Tejinder Singh maintained with OP-2. The complainant has denied these transactions and immediately reported the matter on 27.11.2009 to SHO PS Rajinder Nagar OP-1 on 28.11.2009 to OP-2.The complainant is also written a letter dated 21.12.2009 to the Governor, RBI on the basis of which the account of Tejinder Singh was freezed by OP-2.

11. The complainant has immediately taken the action and informed to the all concerned but OP-1 and 2 did not take any action.
12. The Circular No.DBR No.LEG.BC.78/09.07.G05/2017-18 dated 06.07.2017 issued by RBI regarding Consumer Protection Limiting liability of customers in unauthorised electronic banking transaction is relevant in this matter because burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transaction lies on the bank. The OPs/Banks are supposed to conduct an inquiry about the unauthorised transactions and send suitable reply to the complainant.

13. The complainant has issued a letter Annexure-C2 dated 27.11.2009 to OP-2 regarding unauthorised transaction and letter dated 28.11.2009 to OP-2 about the said transaction. The both of them did not give suitable reply to the complainant. Both of them did not conduct any inquiry into the said transaction. OP-2 has freezed the account of Tejinder Singh only when complainant has given a complaint dated 21.12.2009 Annexure-C4 to Governor, RBI and directions were accordingly issued by RBI. The OP-2 of its own did not take any action and took the complaint casually by probably thinking that they have no role to play in such like transactions.

14. RBI have also issued guidelines from time to time to deal with such situations and listed the respective liabilities of the customer and banks in case of internet/online frauds etc. The liability of the customer is zero when unauthorised transaction has been brought to the notice of the bank. Thecustomer is liable when loss has taken place due to his negligence.

15. There is nothing on the record from the side of the OP that there is negligence on the part of complainant or that he has shared some banking details with someone. The complainant has informed the OP-1 about the transaction on the same day and to OP-2 on the next day. He has even reported the matter to the Police on the same day. The complainant has taken all reasonable precautions as of a prudent person. There is no negligence on his part. Someone has fraudulently done the internet transaction and withdrawn the money from the account of the complainant. Such phishing transaction amounts to a criminal offence which is to be dealt by the criminal court which is a independent remedy. The complainant has remedy under this act with regard to the deficiency in service against the OPs. There is inaction on the part of OPs on the receipt of complaint from the complainant.

16. The aforesaid discussion shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs.Support is drawn from R.P. No.2082/2017 titled as Praveen Kumar Jain vs HDFC Bank decided on 28.12.2023 by Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

17. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OPs shall pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with an interest @7% from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 22.06.2010 till its realization. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 14.05.2024.