Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/252/2023

RAJESH GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, SECTOR 17, CHANDIGARH - Opp.Party(s)

NEHA MATHAROO

02 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	252 of 2023
Date  of  Institution	:	02.05.2023
Date   of   Decision	:	02.04.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Rajesh Garg, aged 53 years, s/o Late Sh.M.L.Garg, #2070, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Sate Bank of India, through its Regional Manager, Local Head Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2]  State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, High Court Branch, Sector 1, Chandigarh

     ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by:-     Complainant in person

Sh.Vishal Gupta, Counsel for the OP

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he was to receive a payment of Rs.8000/- from a person who contacted him through OLX App, who asked the complainant to share UPI details/Scan Code in order to transfer the said amount.  The complainant shared his UPI details over WhatsApp Chat and thereafter, the said person transferred an amount of Rs.5/- which was credited in saving bank account of the complainant maintained with OPs.  Thereafter, to the shock of complainant, he received 4 automated messages from the OP in quick succession that an amount of Rs.8000/-, Rs.8000/-, Rs.24,000/- and Rs.24,000/- was debited from his savings bank account (Ann.C-4).  However, the complainant immediately sent automated messages to the OPs disputing all said 4 transactions to which the OPs relied to resolve the issued within 21 days.  It is stated that the OPs vide email dated 06.01.2023 informed the complainant that the complaint will be resolved by 26.1.2023 but that too was not done. The complainant also lodged police complaint with Cyber Cell (Ann.C-2 & C-3).  It is submitted that the complainant waited for 3 months but even after that the amount of disputed transactions were not reversed by the OPs. Hence, this complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OPs No.1 to refund/reverse an amount of Rs.64,000/- in his account as well as to pay compensation and litigation cost.

 

2]       After service of notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 have put in appearance, filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the disputed transactions in question were executed through UPI mode only and not through any other mode of banking. It is submitted that the complainant has himself admitted in the present complaint that he shared his UPI details through Whatsapp Chat with a person. It is also submitted that in a transaction carried through UPI mode, no One Time Password (OTP) is sent by the server of the Bank and the customer has to submit his/her own 6 digit secret UPI PIN for the transaction conducted through UPI. It is stated that the said 4 transactions were carried out through UPI mode only by the complainant and the complainant had himself carried out the said transactions or has shared his UPI PIN with another person or the complainant had failed to maintain the secrecy of his UPI PIN. It is also stated that there is no manual deduction of any amount by the OP.  It is pleaded that the UPI fund can be transferred by entering the self generated UPI PIN without the requirement of OTP. It is also pleaded that it is not possible to link the account to any UPI App of any Payment Service without access to mobile phone having the SIM which is registered with the bank account of the customer. Denying other allegations, the OPs No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

        

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of the OPs made in their written version.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have gone through the entire record including written submission. 

 

6]      The issue to be decided is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 in not redressing the grievance of the complainant about unauthorized transactions made from his account especially when the unauthorized transactions have been brought to the notice of OP Bank without any delay or not ?

 

7]       To find out answer to this issue, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-

         From the record, especially from Ann.C-2 & C-3 dated 15.12.2022 & 16.12.2022 respectively, it proved that the complainant reported the matter to the OP Bank on that very day when unauthorized transactions took place from his account through UPI mode.  Moreover, the OP Bank has not disputed that the complainant in response to their automated messages about the transaction has disputed the said transactions electronically as fraudulent transactions. Thus, it is proved that the complainant has promptly brought the unauthorized transactions in question to the notice of OP on same day 15.12.2022 as well as on 16.12.2022.

 

8]       It is important to mention here that the Reserve Bank had issued Circular bearing No.RBI/2017-18/15 DBR. No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/ 2017- 18 dated 06/07/2017, to all commercial banks with respect to “Customer Protection-limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions”, wherein it is stipulated that the customer is required to report the unauthorized transaction to the bank, which has been done in the instant case. The relevant part of the said circular is reproduced as under:-

“…..Limited Liability of a Customer

 

(a) Zero Liability of a Customer

 

6.       A customer's entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorised transaction occurs in the following events;

 

(i) Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).

 

(ii) Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised…..”

 

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.

Burden of Proof

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

 

9]      It is observed that the OP Bank has not complied with the directions issued by Reserve Bank of India once the complainant has intimated it about the unauthorized transactions from his account on the same day.   

 

10]      Further, as per the Circular of RBI, referred above, the burden of proving the complainant’s liability is on the OP Bank, which the OP Bank has failed to prove by leading any valid documentary evidence and mere submission of OP Bank that the complainant was negligent or transactions were successful as per the account statement without any cogent evidence does not absolve them of their duty. Hence, non compliance of the directions and failure of the OP Bank in redressing the genuine grievance of the complainant about unauthorsied transactions in question in his account as per by the circular of Reserve Bank of India, detailed above, clearly amounts to deficiency in services.

 

11]      Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A.No.112 of 2015 – Chairman, Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Leader Values Ltd., decided on 13.03.2020 and Revision Petiton No.3333 of 2013 – HDFC bank Limited & Anr. Vs. Jesna Jose, decided on 21.12.2020 as well as decision of Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in Appeal No.114 of 2023 – Dr.Ajay Sood vs. Bank of India, decided on 05.10.2023, wherein similar issue, as in the present case, has been dealt with and decided in favour of the complainant/consumer. 

     

12]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings and settled position of law, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed against OP No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.64,000/- debited on account of unauthorized transactions alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deduction of amount i.e. 15.12.2022 till the date of actual realization.

         This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

 

 

15]     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02.04.2024                                                                         

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER