Case No. 76/2023   

IN THE MATTER OF

Mrs. Archana Bhargava W/o Late Kapil Bhargava R/o Sarai Rehman Aligarh

                                           V/s

1. Relieance Jio infocomm Ltd. 9^th Floor maker chambers IV, 222,Nariman point, Mumbai Maharashtra 400021
2. Bank of Baroda, General Manager, Baroda Bhawan,7^th floor r.C. Dutt Road,Vadoradra
3. Bank of Baroda, Branch Manager, Main Branch Masoodabad, Aligarh

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs:-

1. The ops be directed to reimburse jointly and severally to the complainant an amount Rs. 1004000 with interest @ 9% per annum from 28.11.2022 till the date of actual payment.
2.  The ops be directed to reimburse jointly and severally to the complainant the compensation for harassment at Rs. 500000 and litigation expenses at Rs.50000.

1. Complainant has stated that she is the proprietor of the authorized Maruti Service Station of the firm M/s Kapil Automobiles at Sarai Rahman G.T. Road, Aligarh and her son Mr. Sanchit Bhargav is the C.E.O. of the firm. The firm has its CC account in the Op bank Main Branch, Masoodabad, Aligarh and that account no. 05830500008386 is maintained there with registered mobile number 9837007636 and email Id sanchit@kapilautomoblies.com is  registered therein. On 26.11.2022 at 18.16 O clock a text message was received on the said mobile number to the effect that the mobile number had been temporarily stooped. On this, the son of the complainant made a complaint on toll free no. 199 of the  op JIO company and thereafter at 19.52 O’ clock the mobile number started  to operate. Again on 27.11.2022 at 18.33 O’ clock the same message was received on said mobile number and when the complaint was  made on toll free no.199 of Op JIO Company then as per link

2. OP no.1 stated in WS that the Op no.1 had promptly sent an message (SMS) at 18.16 on 26.11.2022 as confirmed by the complainant about the suspension of service. However received request from the complainant to activate the services at 19.51 on 26.11.2022 and activated the services at 19.52 on 26.11.2022 on the complainant’s mobile no.9837007636 as confirmed by the complainant. Further, complainant called the customer care of jio and requested to suspend the services of the said mobile number citing the reason that sim / handset had lost and the same was complied with and the services made barred. Op no.1 had promptly sent an message (SMS) at18.32 on 27.11.2022 as confirmed by the complainant about suspension of services.  However received request from the complainant to activate the services at 19.35 on 27.11.2022 and activated the services at 19.36 on 27.11.2022 on the complainant’s mobile no.9837007636 as confirmed by the complainant. OP no.1 further submitted that the messages were immediately sent on any transaction and the complainant should have approached the appropriate authority to know the transaction date and time and why he received SMS on 28.11.2022 if the transaction was not pertaining to 28.11.2022. The OP no.1 was not privy to send the messages and only an telecom carrier who transmits the messages send by the user. The complainant data with regard to complaint lodged by him  was never leaked or shared with any third party and the access of phishing emails and further sharing of information to unknown person was only due to negligence of the complainant in using the phone number and might be due to opening of phisy emails etc. and also in secured  system of the bank. Further such transactions are possible only when the complainant had  shared his bank account details to such fraudsters and not alone by only OTP. OTP is the last resort to complete a transaction. No net banking transaction without account details and personal identification number being shared by the complainant can be transacted. Op no.1 is a telecom company and has nothing to do with the complainant’s negligence or any compromise with the bank end. 
3. Op no.2 &3 stated in WS that the Bank of Baroda has its branch at Masoodabad, Aligarh UP where M/s Kapil Automobiles having it’s a/c number 5830500008386 with registered mobile number 9837007636 had reported siphoning of funds through his cash credit A/c no. 9837007636 to the branch Aligarh on 28.11.2002 that 2 RTGS entries through internet banking having UTR no. BARBR 52022112700839047 in fovor of Mohd. Rashid Ansari for Rs. 504000 dated 26.11.2022 and  RTGS UTR no. BARBR 52022112700839042 in favor of Mohd. Sadab for Rs.500000 dated 26.11.2022without his knowledge. Complainant had also lodged F.I.R. No.0009 dated 30.11.2022 in the matter at Cyber Crime Police Station Aligarh. On receipt from the Aligarh branch the matter was referred to corporate office for investigation. There was negligence on the part of the complainant. The transactions were  carried out by authorizing the transactions by way of  sign of password and transaction password and secret question and answer were only known to the account holder and system allowed the transaction only after validation of credentials i.e. OTP / Q and A / Sign on passwords and transaction word. How the credentials were known to unauthorized user and all the credentials were correctly provided and validated by the system the bank has a system where by OTP sent to customer registered mobile number and email ID at the time of change in beneficial owner information without incorporating/ entering OTP send to registered mobile number beneficiary is not added. In the above circumstances it is clear that there is no deficiency / lapse in the system at bank’s internet banking. The matter is under investigation of competent agency of the government and the subject matter  is beyond the jurisdiction of this froum.    
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op have also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. It is clear from the pleadings of parties that 2 RTGS transactions for Rs. 504000 and Rs.500000 total Rs.1004000 from the account of the complainant maintained at Op Bank through net banking system of the Bank operated through the system maintained by telecom company OP no.1. Certainly complainant had not  authorized the bank to withdraw the money and the transactions were unauthorized transactions without consent and knowledge of the account holder and the fraud was played in the transactions . Complainant’s son was misrepresented to follow the link received by him which caused fraudulent removal of money from the account. Complainant’s son acted bonafide in operating the transactions. The system and procedure in bank must be designed to make customer’s risk free and safe to carry out electronic banking transactions and the customer has zero liability in unauthorized transaction made by third party reach for allowing unauthorized electronic banking transactions. There is involvement of both the bank and telecom company in unauthorized transactions of the money and they have failed to provide adequate services required to be rendered under the law. The defense version of parties cannot absolve them from their liabilities and they are responsible for ensuring the security of the customer financial data and account. They should have provided strong system and protocol to protect the customer’s accounts from fraud. We are of the view that both the bank and telecom company are liable for unauthorized withdrawal of the money Rs.1004000 from the account of complainant and they are jointly and severally liable to reimburse the said amount amount with interest @9%  per annum from 28.11.2022 till the date of actual payment and to pay compensation for harassment Rs.25000 and litigation expenses Rs.20000. Complainant is the consumer and the complaint for reimbursement is within the jurisdiction of the District Commission under the Act.     
8. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainants.
9. We hereby direct the Ops to reimburse jointly and severally the amount Rs.1004000 @9%  per annum from 28.11.2022 till the date of actual payment and to pay compensation for harassment Rs.25000 and litigation expenses Rs.20000.     
10. Op shall comply with the direction within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.