CONSUMER CASE NO :- 26/2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
The instant complaint case has been filed by one Nabarun Dey Choudhury against the State Bank of India and others stating the facts that the complainant has a bank account bearing S/B a/c No.-20267799021 in the SBI , Rongpur branch. In respect of the said account the complainant never opt for internet banking or any facility relating to advance banking. On 01/06/2017 the complainant made quary as regards his balance of the aforesaid account through missed call facilities available with the bank operating system and found that there was discrepancy of huge amount in the account. Thereafter the complainant went to the Rongpur branch of SBI and updating his passbook discovered that on 30/05/2017 an amount of Rs.5,000/- was debited from the account by Paytm Mobile Solution, an amount of Rs.9,999/- was transferred to Olacaps. In this way in between 30/05/2017 to 01/06/2017 several illegal and unauthorized transactions were effected and total amount of Rs.1,49,208.10 ( Rupees one lakh forty nine thousand two hundred eight and paise ten) only was transferred from the aforesaid account of the complainant by way of Paytm Mobile Solution and through Recharge-ccavenue-com. The complainant then lodged a complaint before the State Bank of India through ATM Transaction Dispute Format-A, Format-B but all these complaints were disposed of without any legal basis and ground. The complainant also lodged a complaint before the Bank Ombudsman on 02/06/2017 but the said complaint was disposed of on 06/11/2017 on imaginary statement that OTP was sent to the registered mobile number of the complainant before such transaction. According to the complainant, he was in no way connected with the e-banking transaction and never shared any office credentials including any OTP to any third party. It is stated that the said illegal transfer of amount took place due to laches and collusion of the concerned branch for which he has become looser and as such the O.P. bank is liable to reimburse the entire amount. The complainant has, therefore, prayed for passing an award of Rs.1,49,208.10 being the amount lost and for payment of Rs.25,000/- being compensation for harassment alongwith interest and cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.
The Opposite Party Nos.-1 & 2 , the State Bank of India, filed written statement stating , interalia, that there is no cogent reason for filing this complaint, that the Commission has no jurisdiction to try the case, that the claim is barred by limitation etc. It has been stated by the answering O.P. Bank that the alleged transactions made on 30/05/2017, 31/05/2017 and 01/06/2017 in the Savings Bank A/C No. 20267799021 of the complainant were done online via internet under CARD NOT PRESENT (CNP) system where during the course of transactions, the ATM card number, validity of the month, year of the ATM card, CVV number and the name of the card holder are inserted for online transaction with any dealer of goods, service provider etc. and after insertion of the above information, the bank provides One Time Password (OTP) to the Registered mobile number of the account holder suggesting him to insert the OTP number to complete the transaction of the desired amount of money and if the OTP is inserted the bank will transfer/credit the desired amount of money to the account of the goods dealer, service provider etc. by debiting the same amount ( inclusive of service charge, if any ) from the account of the account holder following which a message is sent to the same registered mobile number informing the matter of debit of the amount with other particulars for notice. It is further stated by the O.P. that if the same OTP provided by the bank is not inserted in the course of making transaction no payment will be debited from the account notwithstanding the fact that the ATM card details have been duly inserted for the purpose of transaction. Also in case the ATM particulars are known to any outsider without being in possession of the OTP sent to the mobile number of the account holder the transaction can not be completed. It has been claimed by answering O.Ps. that the disputed transactions are not fraudulent as the complainant shared his ATM card details, OTP in the disputed transactions. It is denied that the answering O.P. has caused any negligence or disservice towards the complainant. Under the circumstances it is prayed for holding that the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are not liable in any way in the case.
The Opposite Party No.-3 by filing a separate written statement has stated that the O.P. No.-3 is mere a facilitator and an online conduit provider for payments having no technical or otherwise control over the secured transaction of credit or debit cards that are performed and validated by the CVV and the Dynamic One Time Password (OTP) of the credit/debit card of the holders. The OTP gets delivered at the mobile number registered with such credit/debit card service provider/bank and once the same is verified by the issuing bank and subsequent to the receipt of the information from such bank regarding the validity of the mode of payment, the server of the O.P. No.-3 automatically allows any order/transaction to be fulfilled. Further statement of O.P. No.-3 is that it is beyond their purview to monitor or control any authorization or non-authorisation of the online payments, which happens through server automatically. The O.P. no.-3 has denied that there was any deficiency on their part and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In support of the case the complainant has submitted his evidence on affidavit as PW-1 and has also exhibited some documents. PW-1 has been cross-examined and discharged. On the other hand, from the side of Opposite Party nos. 1 & 2 evidence on affidavit of one Sri Pinak Das, Branch Manager, SBI , Rongpur branch has been submitted as DW-1. Also from the side of O.P. No.-3 evidence on affidavit of Sri Akshay Garg has been submitted. Thereafter both sides also submitted written argument in addition of oral argument put forward by the learned counsels of the respective parties. Perused the entire evidence on record. Let us now appreciate the evidence below.
In his evidence PW-1, the complainant, has reiterated the same facts brought in the complaint petition. His evidence is that he has got a S/B a/c bearing No.-20267799021 in SBI , Rongpur branch and he used to make quary as regards the balance in the said account. PW-1 has further stated that on 01/06/2017 he made quary in respect of the balance of his aforesaid account through missed call facilities available with the bank operating system and found that there was discrepancy of huge amount in the account. According to PW-1, on the said date he went to the Rongpur branch of SBI and updating his passbook found that on 30/05/2017 an amount of Rs.5,000/- was debited from the account by Paytm Mobile Solution and an amount of Rs.9,999/- was transferred to Olacaps. Also, similarly in this way in between 30/05/2017 to 01/06/2017 total as many as four unauthorized transactions of total amount of Rs.1,49,208.10 ( Rupees one lakh forty nine thousand two hundred eight and paise ten) only took place by way of Paytm Mobile Solution and through Recharge-ccavenue-com. It is also the submission of PW-1 that he lodged a complaint before the State Bank of India through ATM Transaction Dispute Format-A and Format-B but all these complaints were disposed of without any legal basis and ground. He also lodged a complaint before the Bank Ombudsman on 02/06/2017 but the said complaint was disposed of on 06/11/2017 on imaginary statement that OTP was sent to the registered mobile number before such transaction aforesaid. In his evidence PW-1 has claimed that he is in no way connected with the e-banking transaction and never shared any office credentials including OTP to any third party. It is alleged that the said illegal transfer of amount took place due to laches , negligence and collusion done by SBI, Rongpur branch and as such the O.P. bank is liable to reimburse the entire amount. PW-1 has also exhibited his passbook , complaint lodged with the bank etc. So far as the evidence adduced on behalf of O.P. No.-3 Paytm Payments Bank Ltd. it reveals that the O.P. No.-3 is mere a facilitator and an online conduit provider for payments having no technical or otherwise control over the secured transaction of credit or debit cards that are performed and validated by the CVV and the Dynamic One Time Password (OTP) of the credit/debit card of the holders. The OTP gets delivered at the mobile number registered with such credit/debit card service provider/bank and once the same is verified by the issuing bank and subsequent to the receipt of the information from such bank regarding the validity of the mode of payment, the server of the O.P. No.-3 automatically allows any order/transaction to be fulfilled. Further statement of O.P. No.-3 is that it is beyond their purview to monitor or control any authorization or non-authorisation of the online payments, which happens through server automatically. On the other hand, the evidence of PW-1 goes to show that his main grievance is against the O.P. State Bank of India from which he has claimed the reimbursement of the amount transferred from his S/B account.
On perusal of the evidence of DW-1 adduced on behalf of O.P. State Bank Of India we find that they have totally denied the allegation that due to their laches and negligence those unauthorized transactions took place from the account of the complainant. According to DW-1, the alleged transactions made on 30/05/2017, 31/05/2017 and 01/06/2017 in the Savings Bank A/C No. 20267799021 of the complainant were done online via internet under CARD NOT PRESENT (CNP) system where during the course of transactions, the ATM card number, validity of the month, year of the ATM card, CVV number and the name of the card holder are inserted for online transaction with any dealer of goods, service provider etc. and after insertion of the above information, the bank provides One Time Password (OTP) to the Registered mobile number of the account holder suggesting him to insert the OTP number to complete the transaction of the desired amount of money and if the OTP is inserted the bank will transfer/credit the desired amount of money to the account of the goods dealer, service provider etc. by debiting the same amount from the account of the account holder and a message is sent to the same registered mobile number informing the matter of debit of the amount with other particulars for notice. It is further stated by DW-1 that if the same OTP as provided by the bank is not inserted in the course of making transaction no payment will be debited from the account notwithstanding that the ATM card details have been duly inserted for the purpose of transaction and even in case the ATM particulars are known to any outsider without being in possession of the OTP sent to the mobile number of the account holder the transaction can not be completed. As such, DW-1 has claimed that the disputed transactions are not fraudulent and the complainant shared his ATM card details, OTP in the disputed transactions.
Though PW-1 has averred that he is in no way connected with the e-banking transaction and never shared any office credentials including OTP to any third party but he has not disputed the claim of DW-1 that the alleged transactions made on 30/05/2017, 31/05/2017 and 01/06/2017 in the Savings Bank A/C No. 20267799021 were done online via internet under CARD NOT PRESENT (CNP) system. There is also nothing in the case record to show that PW-1 has disputed the procedure of online transaction as claimed by the O.P. bank that during the course of transactions, the ATM card number, validity of the month, year of the ATM card, CVV number and the name of the card holder are inserted for online transaction with any dealer of goods, service provider etc. and after insertion of the above information, the bank provides One Time Password (OTP) to the Registered mobile number of the account holder suggesting him to insert the OTP number to complete the transaction of the desired amount of money and if the OTP is inserted the bank will transfer/credit the desired amount of money to the account of the goods dealer, service provider etc. by debiting the same amount from the account of the account holder and a message is sent to the same registered mobile number informing the matter of debit of the amount with other particulars for notice and also if the same OTP as provided by the bank is not inserted in the course of making transaction no payment will be debited from the account notwithstanding that the ATM card details have been duly inserted for the purpose of transaction and even in case the ATM particulars are known to any outsider without being in possession of the OTP sent to the mobile number of the account holder the transaction can not be completed. PW-1 has stated that he did not share the particulars of his ATM card to anyone. Even for the sake of argument if we believe this claim of PW-1 then also the procedure of online transaction demands insertion of OTP number otherwise the transaction will not be complete notwithstanding that the particulars of the ATM card of the complainant have been inserted by anyone. There can not be any dispute on the point that in case of any online transaction through any particular bank account the OTP will be sent to the mobile number registered in the said bank account. As such it can not be disbelieved that for online transaction through the bank account of the complainant OTP was sent to the mobile number of the complainant which was registered in the said account. So if the OTP number which was sent to the registered mobile number of the complainant is shared by anyone for online transaction for that the O.P. bank can not be held liable. There is also no claim in the case by the complainant that the mobile number which was registered with his bank account was changed by the bank. In view of the above facts and under the circumstances of the case the O.Ps can not be held liable for the alleged online transactions from the bank account of the complainant.
Accordingly, the case of the complainant stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
The judgment is delivered on this 20th day of December’2022 with our seal and signature.
