Delhi

North

CC/38/2021

JAIPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

22 Dec 2023

ORDER

         District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. 38/2021

Sh.Jaipal

S/o Sh.Ranjeet Singh

R/o H.No.1, Vill.Benyapur Khurd

Distt. Sonipal, Haryana

Off Add.M-13, Tis Hazari Court

Delhi-110054                                                                                               …Complainant

 

VS

1. The Manager

State Bank of India

Tis Hazari Court Branch

Delhi-110054                                                                                        …Opposite Party

 

2. The Manager

  Paytm Payments Bank

  Regd. Add.136

  F.Floor, Devika Tower

  Nehru Place

 New Delhi-110019                                                                                …Opposite Party

           

ORDER

22/12/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

            The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Jaipal, the complainant against State Bank of India, Tis Hazari as OP-1 and Paytm Payment Bank as OP-2. 

1. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that, the complainant is maintaining SBI Account no. 10945929080, with OP-1 and also using ‘App’ of OP-2. The complainant has stated that in the month of Oct 2020 he got his passbook updated and came to know that an amount of Rs.19,240/- had been debited through 15 transaction, which are stated to be done illegally through Paytm. All the transaction had been done using Paytm, without any information to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that no message was sent for withdrawal either by OP-1 or OP-2. It has been alleged by the complainant that he has never tried to add, send, share or deducted any type of money to ‘codapayment’. Complaint was made to concerned Police Station and OP-1 and OP-2 were intimated through mail.
2. It has been further stated by the complainant that OP-1 and OP-2 are jointly and severally liable to return the payment with interest, along with compensation as this commission may deem fit. The complainant has annexed the photocopy of bank passbook and screenshot of deduction by Paytm.
3. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP-1 and OP-2.
4. Written statement was filed on behalf of OP-1. They have submitted that the debit entries in the account of the complainant had occurred due to his own negligence or lack of awareness as the password and / or OTP ‘might’ have been shared with the person who eventually misused the account of the complainant. They have further stated that it appears that the complainant is not in proper control of his mobile and bank account though the complainant has alleged 15 transaction amounting to Rs. 19,240/- but has provided copies of about 11 entries  aggregating to Rs. 14,760/-.
5. It was only on 11/11/2020, the complainant registered a complaint with them and not prior to that, thus, they are not the necessary party. Hence, they may be deleted from the array of parties. They have denied that they were suppose to send messages for the debit entry made in the account of the complainant. It was submitted that OP-1 is suppose to send messages only in the case the debit entry is of Rs.5,000 or more and as in the present complaint all entries were less than Rs.5,000/-, hence, no message was sent to the complainant. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied. They have annexed the printout of the mandate in the account of the complainant, statement of account for period 02/09/2020 to 30/11/2020 with their Written Statement.
6. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1 was filed by the complainant, the averments in the complaint have been reiterated and those of the written statement have been denied. It has been reaffirmed that the deductions took place with the help of OP-1.
7. OP-2 has also filed their written statement, where they have submitted that the present complaint was liable to be dismissed qua them as no cause of action had arisen against them. It has been stated that the grievance as per the complaint was solely on the actions/omissions on the part of OP-1. It has been submitted that OP-1 had approached on 08/03/2021 vide SF id #184998322 and OP-2 had asked for the copy of the FIR on 09/03/2021. The complainant had reached out to OP-2 on 11/11/2020 vide SF id #1761136024 where the OP-2 had shared all the transaction details with the complainant on 15/11/2020. Thus, no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice could be attributed to them.
8. They have further submitted that the complainant had failed to establish any relationship of consumer-service provider and it was submitted that the complainant is neither a wallet/ account holder nor carried out the alleged transaction under dispute. They have reproduced the terms and conditions from ‘www.paytmbank.com’.

“Point 12. The customer hereby conveys full comprehension of and acceptance to the above mentioned security procedures followed by PPBL and further agrees and understand that any unauthorised disclosure, access, breach and /or use of the same can put the security of the customer’s account at risk. The customer, therefore, hereby agrees and understand that in order to avoid any legal risk arising out of the usage of the above mentioned procedure of PPBL, the customer shall maintain complete confidentiality, secrecy, possession  and protection  of the mobile phone/ device, App, security procedure related details and /or verification parameters including but not limited to the registered mobile number, password and passport set by the customer or any other procedure as may be communicated by PPBL at its sole discretion.

            Point 23. Compromise of account

.... Customer shall be liable for all losses for any misuse that have happened with his / her consent or knowledge.

 A.2.4 customer obligations

c. the customer shall be solely responsible for the confidentiality safety and security of the password. The customer shall be the sole owner of the password and shall be responsible for the consequences arising out of disclosure of password and/or the unauthorised use of wallet.

Point 29.2(b) PPBL shall not be liable for any inconvenience, loss, cost, damage or injury suffered by the customer or any third party arising from or caused by :

a....

b.... use of PPBL’s by third persons / parties, whether authorised or unauthorised by the customer;”

9.         Therefore, in the view of the above terms and condition, OP-2 was neither responsible for any alleged fraudulent transaction nor liable to compensate the complainant for any alleged deficiency in services. They have further submitted that as per RBI directions dated 06/07/2017 on customer protection- limiting liability of customers in unauthorised banking transactions it has been clearly specified that “a customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorised transactions in case where the loss is due to the negligence of the customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer shall bear the entire loss.

10.       As the Paytm Payments Bank Limited (PPBL) is an automatic conduit service provider. Therefore, any time customer willingly performs any transaction through the Paytm wallet account, the same has to be done by entering genuine and correct banking credentials, along with OTP provided exclusively to the customer. Transaction takes place automatically and the amount is accordingly added / deducted from the wallet as well as from any beneficiary bank account upon entering the relevant information. It has been submitted that the “App” used by the complainant to carry out the transaction requires the human interference. Only once all the necessary details such as account no., Payee account no., password and OTP are entered then only a transaction can be carried out. Rest of the contents have been denied with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua OP-2 and deleting their name from the array of parties. They have annexed the Board Resolution authorising Sh. Sarthak Kapila as Annexure OP-1, terms and conditions of PPBL as Annexure OP-2, RBI circular dated 06/07/2017 as Annexure OP-3 with their written statements.

11.       Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1.  The contents of the complaint have been reaffirmed and those of the written statement filed on behalf of OP-1 have been denied.

12.       Rejoinder to the WS of OP-2 has been filed by the complainant where it has been submitted that OP-2 is a necessary party as the wallet facility was provided by them and the complainant had downloaded the Paytm Application on his mobile phone which is linked with the account maintained with OP-1.  Rest of the contents of the written statement have been denied and those of the complaint have been reiterated.

13.       The complainant has got examined himself and has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint. He has got exhibited the copy of the Aadhar Card and Driving license as Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B respectively. The copy of the passbook and screenshots of the Paytm ID are Ex.CW1/C and Ex.CW1/D respectively. It has been reiterated that in the end of October 2021, the complainant got his passbook printed where he came to know about the disputed transactions.  Copies of the screenshot of deduction and account statement are Ex.CW1/E (colly.) and the original copy of the complaint made to concerned police station is Ex.CW1/E (though it should be Ex.CW1/F)

14.       Evidence by way of Affidavit on behalf of OP-1 was filed. They have got Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi examined. They have reaffirmed that as per the complaint, the complainant had only intimated on 11/11/2020. They have got exhibited statement of account Ex. DW1/1.

15.       Sh.  Sarthak Kapila was examined on behalf of OP-2. The contents of their written statement have been repeated and they have got the terms and conditions of Paytm Payment Bank Ltd.(PPBL)  as Ex.OP-1 and the directions issued by RBI as Ex.OP-2. 

16.       We have heard the arguments on the behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and Ld. Counsel for OP-2.  The account of the complainant has been debited by Rs.19,240/- by way of 15 transactions from 25/10/2020 to 06/11/2020.  All the transactions have been made using ‘Paytm’.  The complainant has stated that he got his passbook updated in the end of October 2020; however, the last disputed transaction is on 06/11/2020.  It is an admitted case that the complainant had informed OP-1 and OP-2 on 11/11/2020.  The said letter is within five days from the date of last transaction.

17.       OP-1 has submitted that in the present case they were suppose to send messages only in case when  the debit entry is of Rs.5,000/- or more and in the present case all the debit entries were less than Rs.5,000/- and have  placed on record the screenshot of the details of the complainant’s account, wherein it has been shown that the  customer selected an option of SMS alert in case the deposit/withdrawal is greater than or equal to Rs.5,000/-, however, the said document giving consent does  not bear the signature of the complainant.

18.       OP-2 has denied the consumer-service provider relationship between the complainant and OP-2, they have stated in para 8 of the written statement: ‘Admittedly, the complainant is not a consumer qua OP-2.  Complainant is neither a wallet/account holder nor carried out the alleged transactions under dispute’.  However, the complainant in Ex.CW1/T,  complaint to the SHO, PS:Subzi Mandi dated 11/11/2020 has categorically stated that he is maintaining a Paytm on his mobile phone no.9312203021 and he did not get any OTP prior to withdrawal nor he received any message from the bank. Thus, there exists a customer- service provider relationship between the complainant and   OP-2.

19.       In para 7 of the Written Statement of OP-2, it has been submitted:              ‘Admittedly the transaction happened due to the mischievous act of the ‘fraudsters’ and not due to alleged deficiency on the part of OP-2’. 

20.       OP-2 has filed the RBI/2017-18/15 DBR. No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/ 2017- 18 dated 06/07/2017, issued by Reserve Bank of India with respect to “Customer Protection-limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions”, the customer is required to report the unauthorized transaction to the bank.  Under the head ‘Limited Liability of a Customer’ which deals with the cases:-

 7. A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorised transactions in the following cases:

 (i) 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 unauthorised transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorised transaction shall be borne by the bank.

 (ii) In cases where the responsibility for the unauthorised electronic banking transaction lies neither with the bank nor with the customer, but lies elsewhere in the system and when there is a delay (of four to seven working days after receiving the communication from the bank) the customer in notifying the bank of such a transaction, the per transaction liability of the customer shall be limited to the transaction value or the amount mentioned in Table 1, whichever is lower.

Table 1

Maximum Liability of a Customer under paragraph 7 (ii)

Type of Account Maximum liability	Maximum liability (₹)
• BSBD Accounts	5,000
• All other SB accounts      • Pre-paid Payment Instruments and Gift Cards      • Current/ Cash Credit/ Overdraft Accounts of MSMEs • Current Accounts/ Cash Credit/ Overdraft Accounts of Individuals with     annual average balance (during 365 days preceding the incidence of fraud)/limit up to Rs.25 lakh     • Credit cards with limit up to Rs.5 lakh	10,000
• All other Current/ Cash Credit/ Overdraft Accounts    • Credit cards with limit above Rs.5 lakh	25,000

   Further, if the delay in reporting is beyond seven working days, the customer liability shall be determined as per the bank’s Board approved policy. Banks shall provide the details of their policy in regard to customers’ liability formulated in pursuance of these directions at the time of opening the accounts. Banks shall also display their approved policy in public domain for wider dissemination. The existing customers must also be individually informed about the bank’s policy.

9. Overall liability of the customer in third party breaches, as detailed in paragraph 6 (ii) and paragraph 7 (ii) above, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, is summarized in the Table 2

Table2

Summary of Customer’s Liability

 

Time taken to report the fraudulent transaction from the date of receiving the communication	Customer’s liability (₹)
Within 3 working days	Zero liability
Within 4 to 7 working days	The transaction value or the amount mentioned in Table 1, whichever is lower
Beyond 7 working days	As per bank’s Board approved policy

 

Further under the head Limited Liability of the Customer and reversal time line for zero liability directs the bank:-

 

“9.On being notified by the customer, the bank shall credit (shadow reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorised 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). Banks may also at their discretion decide to waive off any customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transactions even in cases of customer negligence. The credit shall be value dated to be as of the date of the unauthorised transaction.

10. Further, banks shall ensure that:

 (i) a complaint is resolved and liability of the customer, if any, established within such time, as may be specified in the bank’s Board approved policy, but not exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint, and the customer is compensated as per provisions 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; and

 (iii) in case of debit card/ bank account, the customer does not suffer loss of interest, and in case of credit card, the customer does not bear any additional burden of interest.

11. ......

Burden of Proof

12. The burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transaction shall lie on the bank.

21.       It is the complainant’s own case that he got his passbook updated in the end of October 2020. Presuming that the complainant, an advocate, got his passbook updated on 31/10/2020, should have informed the OPs immediately.  However, the first written complaint to OPs is on 11/11/2020. For transactions from 25/10/2020 to 31/10/2020, 02/11/2020 and 03/11/2020, are beyond the prescribed period of 4 to 7 days.  However, transactions dated 05/11/2020 and 06/11/2020 are covered under point 7(ii) of RBI circular dated 06/07/2017.

22.       As per point 7(ii) the maximum liability of the customer shall be limited to the transaction value or the amount mentioned in the Table-1 (reproduced above), whichever is lower. In case of BSBD accounts and all other SBI accounts the maximum liability is Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000 respectively.   Admittedly, all the transactions in the present case range from Rs.40/- to Rs.4,000/- which is below Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the complainant does not get any benefit from this circular. 

23.       However, in the said circular the banks are directed to credit shadow reversal within 10 working days from the date of notification by the customer  (Point 9) and as per Point 10(i) and (ii), it has been directed that the banks shall ensure that the complaint is resolved and liability of  customer, if any, is to be established within 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint  and if bank is unable to resolve the complaint within 90 days then they are liable to pay compensation.  In the present case, nothing has been placed on record by OP-1 and OP-2 that the grievance of the complainant was resolved within the prescribed period.  Mere bald assertion of OP-1 and OP-2 without any document showing that the complaint was investigated and upon investigation the complainant was found to be negligent does not hold ground.  The burden as per the RBI instructions is on the OPs to prove that the customer was negligent in case of unauthorized transaction has not been discharged by OPs in the present case.

24.       OPs rejected the complaint made by the complainant without following the guidelines issued by RBI.  Therefore, non compliance of the RBI/2017-18/15 DBR. No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/ 2017- 18 dated 06/07/2017, issued by Reserve Bank of India, makes complainant entitled to compensation on account of deficiency in services.  Rejection of the claim by OPs has also caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.

25.       Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and in the interest of justice, we hold OP-1 and OP-2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.  It is further clarified that   OP-1 and OP-2 shall pay Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant. 

            The order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order.  In case of non-compliance of the order, OPs shall be liable to pay interest @7% p.a. on Rs.20,000/- from the date of order till realization.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)              Member	(Ashwani Kumar Mehta)                         Member                                       (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)                                        President