……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Ashish Singla, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Aulakh, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that she is a regular customer of op bank having CIF No. 86270781187 and is operating various accounts with the op bank such as saving bank account No. 32201861249, recurring deposit account no. 33832174126 and term deposit account no. 34994023490. That complainant had opened her bank accounts physically at the home branch of ops i.e. op no.1. It is further averred that complainant had also got issued a term deposit receipt from the Home Branch of op no.2 for deposit of a sum of Rs.59446/- under term deposit scheme on 25.06.2018 which was a renewal of the earlier time deposit with a maturity date of 13.06.2021 bearing account no. 34994023490. That complainant had also physically got opened above said recurring deposit account on 12.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.1000/- per month at home branch of op no.2. It is further averred that all these accounts were opened by the complainant for her future financial safety with a purpose to get realized the amount deposited at the time of need in future. That on 01.10.2020 when the complainant was trying to get her mobile recharged through online process, she received a link to download the online app. and she downloaded the two apps innocently considering the same to be associated apps of SBI for online recharge. That immediately within few minutes of downloading the same, a total sum of Rs.81,990/- was deducted from the saving bank account of complainant in two transactions of Rs.77000/- and of Rs.4990/-. That on 01.10.2020 before these fraudulent transactions, the credit balance of the account was 1710.89 and automatically without any request from the side of complainant, a sum of Rs.68,782/- by premature closure of term deposit account and a sum of Rs.1,00,027/- by online premature closure of recurring deposit account was credited in the account of the complainant whereas complainant had never made any such request to close these accounts prematurely. The complainant did not receive any message about the premature closure permission or OTP for closure of these two accounts. It is further averred that otherwise also, as per the guidelines of RBI, account closure terms and conditions of State Bank of India as well as technically an account opened physically at home branch can not be closed through online process or any other mode except by visiting the home branch. That complainant immediately on the same day within few minutes on coming to know about this online fraud informed about this incidence to the bank officials by call on 1800111109 and also through email as well as by way of a written complaint at the branch because as per RBI guidelines on intimation within a reasonable time of 24-48 hours to the bank about online fraud, the deducted amount shall be returned back to the victim account holder. However, the bank officials did not take any action in this regard and surprisingly the complaint was wrongly rejected by the bank vide letter dated 09.06.2021 and the shadow credit was also reversed in an arbitrary manner and this all amounts to gross negligence in the financial services provided by the ops and the loss caused to the complainant is totally because of this negligent act on the part of officials of the ops which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on account of which complainant has suffered great financial loss and unnecessary harassment. That complainant got issued a legal notice dated 29.06.2021 to the ops and a vague reply dated 01.07.2021 was received by complainant vide which the ops refused to admit their fault rather held the complainant guilty of sharing the payment credentials. Hence, this complaint seeking refund of the amount of Rs.81,990/- alongwith interest besides compensation and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppal, suppression of true and material facts and that subject matter of the present complaint is of own negligence and carelessness on the part of the complainant herself and no deficiency in service has been attributed to the ops and as such no consumer dispute is made out between the parties, therefore, present complaint does not lie before this Commission. On merits, it is submitted that complainant is maintaining and operating her saving bank account through Yono Mobile App and thus, she has been enjoying the internet banking as well. The complainant had/ has also been maintaining and operating her recurring deposit account through Yono Mobile app as well. It is further submitted that complainant has stated the facts with a twist rather the same are altogether contradictory to the complaint lodged by complainant with the police. In her police complaint lodged on 1.10.2020, the complainant reported the alleged incidence as “Fraudster posing as Airtel employee called and asked for installation of an application (screen sharing application) through which my details were shared and fixed deposit account linked to my account was broken to debit the said amount”. However, the complainant has averred totally indifferent story and so it implies that complainant has not come with clean hands and has propounded a totally false and baseless story in order to put a cover on her own wrongs. It is further submitted that complainant operated her bank accounts with the ops through Yono App and thereby drew the amounts from her bank account through the said Mobile App. That when any account holders draws amount from his/ her account through the mobile app, then a OTP is sent to the registered mobile number of such customer of the bank. In this case also, the OTP was sent to the registered mobile number of complainant and she uploaded the OTP number on the portal and then amount was drawn from her account. Both the disputed transactions through INB were OTP based transactions. As per SMS delivery report, OTP for both the transactions were delivered to the registered mobile of the complainant. As per the log-in details, the log-in to INB on the date of disputed transactions was successful. Log-in to INB can only be possible through the use of user ID and password which are purely confidential. The user ID and password always remain with the customer and nobody other knows about the same. It is further submitted that the Yono subscriber can avail the pre-mature closure of the STDR or close the STDRs opened through different channels like Branch, internet banking etc. It is wrong that complainant never made any request to close the accounts and that complainant did not receive any message and OTP as alleged. It is further submitted that complainant is an existing user of INB having user ID “Aakriti3010” and both the disputed transactions and premature closure of two term deposit were carried out through INB and through Yono App respectively and happened only after the premature closure of RD account on 1.10.2020. As per the SMS delivery report, activation code for Yono App was delivered to the registered mobile number (9643868142) at 13:36:18 hrs on 1.10.2020 and Yono App was enabled at 13:37:31 hrs on the same day. Therefore, it shows that Yono App could not have been enabled without sharing of activation code by the customer. As per the facility available in Yono App, the customer can close the term deposits prematurely even if these are opened in offline mode. This is the failure on the part of the customer in safe keeping the payment credentials. It is further submitted that moreover as per RBI directive on “Customer Protection – limited liability of customers in unauthorized electronic transactions: In case where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he/ she has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss and the bank shall not be liable for the same. The op bank usually sends SMS messages to its registered customers on their registered mobile numbers and thereby alerts them to never download any app in their device on the advice of strangers and that fraudsters can access/ steal your personal data with such apps and further alerts that do not click on links embedded in SMSs/ emails received from unknown sources, these could lead to frauds and do not respond to any SMS/ email containing link that leads to webpae asking details like username, password, card details or OTP and also advised them to report such messages to “report.phising@sbi.co.in. It is further submitted that on reciept of the complaint, the op no.1 immediately reported the same to the higher bank authorities and also to the Digital & Transaction Banking Department, State Bank of India, LHO, Chandigarh and a Committee of three officers of the Bank i.e. Assistant General Manager (Digital & E-commerce), Assistant General Manager (Fraud Monitoring Cell) and Assistant General Manager (Customer Service) was constituted, which minutely scrutinized the case of the complainant and thereafter vide its Note No. DTB/2020-21/400 dated 16.1.2021 recommended for rejection and sent the same to the Internal Ombudsman for perusal. The Internal Ombudsman also rejected the claim of complainant by finding the complainant to be negligent in sharing the payment credentials to the fraudsters. The claim of complainant has been rightly rejected by the ops vide letter dated 9.6.2021. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C9.
5. On the other hand, ops have tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Narinder Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A and copies of documents EX. R1 to Ex.R7.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant is having three accounts with the op no.1 bank i.e. saving bank account, RD account and term deposit account and all three accounts were opened by the complainant offline and by visiting branch of op no.1 bank. The branch of op no.1 had issued receipt of the amount of Rs.59,466/- which was deposited by complainant under term deposit scheme on 25.06.2018 and same was renewal of the earlier deposit which was to be matured on 13.06.2021. He has further contended that on 01.10.2020 total amount of Rs.81,990/- was deducted from the saving bank account of the complainant fraudulently in two transactions of the amount of Rs.77,000/- and of Rs.4990/- and before these fraudulent transactions, the credit balance of the account was Rs.1710.89 and automatically without any request from the side of complainant, a sum of Rs.68,782/- by premature closure of term deposit account and a sum of Rs.1,00,027/- by online premature closure of recurring deposit account was credited in the account of complainant whereas complainant has made no such request to closure these accounts prematurely. Learned counsel for complainant further contended that accounts which were opened offline cannot be operated online or through Yono app and has also contended that no OTP number has been received by complainant for pre-mature closure of these term deposit and recurring deposit accounts. He has further contended that despite immediate intimation regarding above said premature closure of her accounts and fraudulent transactions to the ops, the ops as well as their higher authorities did not take any action in the matter and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has contended that present complaint has been filed by complainant by concealing the fact which was reported to the police that complainant received a call from fraudster who asked for installation of an application and complainant shared her details on that screen sharing application and her fixed deposit account linked to her account was broken to debit the amount. He has further contended that above said transactions has been done in connivance with the complainant herself as she had shared her details and clicked on the link sent to her. A detailed inquiry has already been got conducted by the bank and higher authorities of the ops and no deficiency of the bank has been found and only after this complaint of complainant was rejected by the higher authorities of the ops. Learned counsel for ops has also contended that as per Ex.R5 through Yono app, the RD account and fixed deposit account though opened offline can be operated. The complainant has shared link sent to her and then OTP numbers for above said transactions were sent to her mobile number and only then amounts were deducted from her account and as such the bank is not at fault. The authorities of bank has already inquired the matter and bank was not found at fault rather complainant was found at fault and only then her claim was rejected and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
10. Admittedly the complainant was having above said three accounts i.e. saving bank account bearing No. 32201861249, recurring deposit account no. 33832174126 and term deposit account no. 34994023490 with the op no.1 bank. According to the complainant, she had got opened her above said back accounts physically by visiting the branch of ops. The ops have not disputed the said fact that the said accounts were not opened by the complainant by visiting the branch of the ops. The complainant has alleged illegal deductions of the amount of Rs.81,990/- from her saving bank account in two transactions of the amount of Rs.77,000/- and Rs.4990/- on 1.10.2020 and according to complainant prior to above said illegal deductions by some fraudster from her account, the amounts of Rs.68,782/- and Rs.1,00,027/- of her deposits were credited in her accounts by premature closure of term deposit account and recurring deposit account through online without any request from the side of the complainant. In this regard complainant has also placed on file her statement of account maintained with op no.1 bank as Ex.C1, the perusal of which also reveals that on 1.10.2020, before deductions of amounts of Rs.77,000/- and Rs.4990/- from the saving bank account of complainant, amounts of Rs.68,782/- and Rs.1,00,027/- were credited in the saving bank account of complainant by premature closure of term deposit account and recurring deposit account through online though the above said both accounts were also opened by the complainant offline by visiting the branch of op no.1 bank. The ops bank have asserted that the amounts were either withdrawn by complainant herself after premature closure of the above said accounts or she shared the payment credentials with the fraudster as amounts were withdrawn after sending OTP numbers to the mobile of the complainant and it is her own negligence and she has herself admitted in her complaint that Fraudster posing as Airtel employee called and asked for installation of an application screen sharing application through which her details were shared and fixed deposit account linked to her account was broken to debit the said amount. But we found no substance in the contention of the opposite parties firstly because admittedly all the three accounts were opened offline and according to message sent to the complainant by the bank which is placed on record, she has been informed that if you have opened the fixed deposit account online then the same can be closed online itself. However, in case the account was opened at the branch, then you will have to visit the branch alongwith the fixed deposit advise to close the account. Secondly it is also not understandable that a fraudster will firstly get transferred the amounts to the saving bank account of the complainant and then will get it transferred to his account from the account of complainant by fraudulent transactions because if the accounts of the complainant would have been got closed prematurely by a fraudster then he might have directly transferred the amounts to his own account and not in the account of the complainant. So, it is certainly deficiency in service on the part of bank and fraudster, if any was within the bank and was not outside the bank. The term deposit account which was opened by the complainant through offline was to be matured on 13.06.2021 but it was broken by the bank prematurely through online and therefore, premature closure of term deposit account and RD account of complainant is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. The opposite parties as well as their higher authorities have only held the complainant guilty of sharing her payment credentials with the unknown person, but however, it has not come anywhere on the record that either ops or their higher authorities have ever got enquired the matter and tried to investigate the matter from suspect Mukesh Sharma whose name as well as his mobile number was given by the complainant in her complaint, the copy of which is placed on file by ops themselves as Ex.R1. There is nothing on file to prove that ops have ever tried to get reversed back the amount from the account of the person in whose account the above said amounts were transferred. It is the settled principle that the bank has to protect the money of its depositors but in this case the ops bank are found deficient in service and they are liable to return back the amount of the complainant. Now the ops cannot take benefit of the document i.e. features of YONO app Ex.R5 when they have already disclosed to the complainant through messages that if the accounts were opened offline then same cannot be closed online.
12. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.81,990/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to receive the amount of Rs.81,990/- from the ops alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated: 02.05.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
