GM CUSTOMER SERVICE-Mumbai-by Speed Post. But got no response.

            Further, as per version of the complainant that he had contacted with SBI twitter account @TheOfficialSBI, on July, 28,2022, July 30,2022 and Aug 5, 2022.

 On 6 August 2022, SBI customer service-send mail to complainant by informing-SBI launch customer care Case- 119363828 for unauthorized transaction and acknowledged “Transaction not done by the customer”…. Will be resolved within 21 days.

            On 8 August 2022 SBI customer service-send mail to complainant by informing-SBI customer care Case-119363828 for unauthorized transaction and acknowledged “Transaction not done by the customer”…...

            On 29 Aug 2022 the complainant received mail from SBI customer service- where they mentioned that, they require more time and it will be resolved by 17 SEP 2022.

On 30 Aug 2022 the complainant received mail from SBI that complaint have closed on grounds for not submitting SOP to branch within 45 days from the date of complaint and informed the complainant-re-submit SOP on branch.

            Thereafter, the petitioner had several times contacted with SBI officials for redress his grievance but they did not redress the same.

            The complainant applied under the RTI Act on 23 SEP 2022 and got reply from 18 OCT 2022. According to the same:

1. The current status of the complainant is closed and the claim is rejected.
2. The complainant registered KYC+SOP on 23 MARCH 2022.

According to RBI GUIDELINE- column-10 AND SBI GUIDELINE-COLUMN 4.6.6 mention

that bank shall ensure and compensate customer and resolve complaint within 90 days 291 days over, but, the complainant got nothing without harassment, negligence and mental agony.

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this complaint before this Forum/Commission for proper relief and prays for order to:-

“1. To refund Rs. 35,020/.

              2. To pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family member and,

  3. To pay a sum of Rs. 150000/- as a compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service.

              4. To pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards the cost of the petitioner.”

            The OP/SBI stated in Para 16 of their written version dated 09/02/2023 as: “That the justification(s) of the Bank to reject the claim i.e. Bank has rejected customer claim citing reason that the disputed transaction could not have taken place without sharing of payment credentials & OTP by the customer which arte private and confidential and known to customer only. As customer was negligent and failed to ensure safekeeping of his payment credentials as well as OTPs received in his mobile, hence, Bank cannot be held liable for the negligence on part of the customer. Therefore, his liability is full as per RBI Circular dated 06/07/2017 on Customer Protection-“Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions”.

            Ultimately the OP/Bank prayed for dismissal of the case.

            It appears from the case record that the OP/Bank submitted their written version as well as written notes of arguments. But, no evidence-in-chief filed by the OP/Bank in support of their case.

            Complainant also filed evidence-in-chief and written notes on arguments. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant which were compared with the original ones and found to be the same/identical. Thereafter, the power of attorney holder on behalf of the complainant and the Ld. Advocate for the OP/Bank made oral arguments in support of their case.

            Heard Ld. advocates for both sides.

            Considered.

Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the petitioner/complainant is a bonafide customer under the OP/SBI, Suri Town Branch and as such it can be said that the petitioner is a consumer under the OP/Bank as per Sec. 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the OP/Bank is a service provider in view of the C.P. Act.

(Page 4 of 8)

Point No. 2:

            The unauthorized transaction took place on 12/02/2022 and the instant case was filed on 01/12/2022 and as such it can be said that the petitioner has filed this case within the statutory period in view of the C.P. Act and as such the instant complaint is not barred as per U/S 69(1) under the C.P. Act, 2019.

Point No. 3:

It appears from the documentary evidence as available in the case record that three unauthorized transactions have been took place on 12/02/2022, 10:30 am and the petitioner have lodge General Diary to Suri Cyber Crime Police Station vide Report No. 93/22 dated 12/02/2022, 11.00 am i.e. within an hour of the same day of unauthorized transitions.

We perused the RBI Notifications and Guideline Vide DBR. No. Leg. BC. 78/09.07.005/1017-18 dated July 6, 2017 as well as SBI Guideline dated 25/10/2021 as cited by the petitioner which was annexed in his plaint.

According to RBI Notifications and Guideline-Para title [Limited Liability of a Customer] on 7.(i) “In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he has shared the payment credential, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the Bank.

And Table.2 Title  Summary of Customer’s Liability “liability of customer’s is zero if he reports within three working days.”

According to SBI GUIDELINE ON CUSTOMER RIGHTS -2021-V-2 ON PARA 4.62-TITLE-LIMITED LIABILITY OF A CUSTOMER PART b) LIMITED LIABIULITY OF A CUSTOMER...  “In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the Bank”.

The complainant have informed and notified in writing about unauthorized transaction to the manager of the SBI, on 14/02/2022 [within three working days] and he rejects to accept any complaint and he suggest complaint to close the bank account because according to him complainant not eligible to get money as the complainant have shared OTP.

So, the petitioner informed the matter to the Suri Cyber Crime P.S. and SBI Suri Town Branch within the stipulated period as per the said RBI Notification and SBI Guideline.

According to RBI Notification and Guideline- Para title [Reversal Timeline for Zero Liability/Limited Liability of customer] on Para Nos. 9 and 10 …..

“9. …….the bank shall credit (shadow reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorized electronic transaction to the customer’s account within 10 working days from the date of such notification by the customer (without waiting for settlement of insurance claim, if any)……”

10. Further, banks shall ensure that:

(i) …….. but not exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint, and the customer is compensated as per provision of paragraphs 6 to 9 above;

(ii) where it is unable to resolve the complaint or determine the customer liability, if any, within 90 days, the compensation as prescribed in paragraphs 6 to 9 is paid to the customer….”

But, we are surprised to observe that the petitioner stated in Para 21 of his plaint as: “……291 days over, your honour the complainant got nothing without harassment, negligence and mental agony.”

We are more surprised to observe that on 6 August, 2022, SBI customer…..

 On 6 August 2022, SBI customer service-sent a mail to complainant by informing-SBI launch customer care Case- 119363828 for unauthorized transaction and acknowledged “Transaction not done by the customer”…. Will be resolved within 21 days.

            On 8 August 2022 SBI customer service-sent another mail to complainant by informing-SBI customer care Case-119363828 for unauthorized transaction and acknowledged “Transaction not done by the customer”…...

Further, we are surprised to observe that complainant received Shadow Reversal as dated:-

            14 March 2022- Shadow Reversal On complaint  87744848 10/

            15 March 2022- Shadow Reversal On complaint  87744909 10/

15 March 2022 Shadow Reversal On complaint 87744792-35000/-

The petitioner attached photocopy of shadow Reversal page of pass book of the petitioner.

As per RTI reply by OP/Bank dated 18 Oct, 2022 “The current states of the complaint is closed and the claim is rejected.”

The Ld. Advocate for OP/SBI stated in Page 1 of their written notes of argument as: “…….nowhere in the complaint petition there is whisper of any claim far to speak of any prayer. Moreover no Registered Power of Attorney is deposited before the Learned Forum by the side of the complainant for filing and running of the case in hand.”

But, this Commission has minutely scrutinized the plaint of the petitioner and has found that the petitioner has clearly mentioned his claim. Through the heading as, “Prayer of the complainant” in the page No. 14 of his complaint. We have also perused the “Power of Attorney” in connection with the case, dated 30/11/2022 wherein the power of attorney is/was accepted by Subhendu Roy and his signature was

also attested by the petitioner, Dipendu Roy. Moreover, that Power of Attorney is/was notarized on 30/11/2022 by Panchkari De, Notary Reg. No. 6/2007, Suri Sadar SB, Birbhum. So, the petitioner had maintained all the legal formalities in respect of his Power of Attorney. Hence, it is accepted by this Commission.

It is also a settled practice in law that except only the case of transfer of immovable property through the Power of Attorney  there is no compulsion to make any Power of Attorney Registered before the office concerned of the District Registrar. On the other hand, the original petitioner/consumer namely Dipendu Roy had already mentioned in his plaint that he has given power of attorney to Subhendu Roy to represent the case and the same has been duly affirmed on affidavit before the Notary Public. Further, being the family number of the said consumer namely Dipendu Roy his elder brother namely Subhendu Roy can be presumed as ‘beneficiary’ of that banking service in terms of availing of that service through his brother under the meaning of Sec. 2(7) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 2019 treating that the consumer had already given approval to conduct the case against the OP by execution of that Power of Attorney to get redress of his grievances.

Ld. Advocate for the OP/Bank also stated in Page 2 of their written notes of arguments as: “In view of the above observation made herein above, the decision of Bank to reject the claim of the customer is hereby concurred and the disputed amount can only be recovered by availing the opportunity form Cyber Crime.

In this situation, we observed that no report has yet been made by the Suri Cyber Crime P.S. in respect of the said unauthorized transaction. But, SBI Bank Customer Care emailed three times to the petitioner, Dipendu Roy:-

Dated 07 March, 2022 at 16:05,

“…….. Customer Care Case: 87744792 has been recorded for UNAUTHORISED TRANSACTION RETAIL INB UNAUTHORISED TXN... TRANSACTION NOT DONE BY THE USTOMER- BILL PAYMENTS and will be resolve within 21D (days)……”

Dated 07 March, 2022 at 16:05,

“…….. Customer Care Case: 87744909 has been recorded for UNAUTHORISED TRANSACTION- RETAIL INB UNAUTHORISED TXN... TRANSACTION NOT DONE BY THE USTOMER- BILL PAYMENTS and will be resolve within 21D (days)……”

Dated 07 March, 2022 at 16:04,

“…….. Customer Care Case: 87744848 has been recorded for UNAUTHORISED TRANSACTION- RETAIL INB UNAUTHORISED TXN... TRANSACTION NOT DONE BY THE USTOMER- BILL PAYMENTS and will be resolve within 10D (days)……”

(Page 7 of 8)

So, SBI Bank customer care after  investigation of three customer care cases they emailed to the petitioner and stated that “UNAUTHORISED TRANSACTION NOT DONE BY THE CUSTOMER”

Moreover, the OP/Bank did not file any evidence-in-chief in support of their case. Only written version and written notes of arguments have no value unless the contents thereof are established by evidence.

From the above discussion, this Commission is of the view that the OP/Bank did not agree to the amount of refund the said unauthorized transactions as claimed by the complainant and the cause shown by the OP/Bank for rejection of the said claim is baseless and vexatious one.

It is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP/Bank is amounting to deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(11) of C.P. Act, 2019.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant has able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Point No. 4:

As there is deficiency in service, the complainant is well entitled to get the relief/relieves from the instant case.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.C. Case No. 115/2022 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.

The OP/SBI, Suri Town Branch is directed to pay Rs. 35,020/ (Thirty five thousand twenty only) to the petitioner as unauthorized transaction.

The OP/SBI, Suri Town Branch is also directed to pay Rs. 50,000/ (Fifty thousand only) to the petitioner as compensation as against mental agony, harassment and also directed to pay   Rs. 5,000/ (Five thousand only) to the petitioner as litigation cost.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP/SBI within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

If the OP/SBI fail to comply the decree, the complainant will be at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.