State Bank of India, to be represented by its Branch Manager V/S Shri Nripen Das - Consumer Court Case

Tripura

West Tripura

CC/68/2023

Shri Nripen Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India, to be represented by its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Choudhury, Mrs.R.Shil.

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO: CC- 68 of 2023

Sri Nripen Das,

S/O- Manindra Das,

Near Jagadishpur,

Ratan Nagar ICDS Centre,

Briddha Nagar, P.O. Ranirbazar,

District- West Tripura. …....…............Complainant.

-VERSUS-

1. State Bank of India,

Khayer pur Branch, Khayerpur, Old Agartala,

P.O. Khayerpur, P.S. Bodhjungnagar,

District- West Tripura, Pin- 799008,

IFCS No. SBIN0018505

(To be represented its

Branch Manager). …................Opposite Party.

__________PRESENT__________

SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

Sri Manti Gope,

Learned Advocates.

For the O.P. : Sri Amritlal Saha,

Sri kajal Nandi,

Sri Sunil Bhaumik,

Learned Advocates.

ORDER DELIVERED ON: 03.04.2024.

F I N A L O R D E R

1. This case is filed U/S 35 of the consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Sri Nipen Das, of Ranirbbazar, West Tripura here -in-after called the “Complainant” against State Bank of India, Khayerpur Branch, West Tripura here-in-after called the “O.P.” alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

1.1 The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is the customer of the O.P. Bank having savings account with them vide No. 20375362227 since 14.06.2017 maintaining till date.

1.2 On 04.09.2022 at 10.00 P.M. to 11.00 P.M. The complainant received 5 messages from the O.P. Bank regarding deduction of amounts from his SB Account. 1st transaction for van amount o Rs.301.00/- vide transaction No. UPI/ DR/ 224763506856/ SAMINNFO/ YESB/ saminf 098098162095, 2nd transaction and 3rd transaction were for amount of Rs.501.00/- respectively vide transaction No. UPI/ DR/ 224763566560/ SAMINFO/ YESB/ saminf 098065162094 and UPI/ DR/ 224763600966/ SAMINFO/ YESB/ saminf 696384162090 and last 2 transactions were done from an amount of Rs.20,001.00/- respectively vide No.UPI/ DR/ 224763666567/ SAMINFO/ YESB/ saminf 692663162093. In total Rs.40,305/-.

1.3 Immediately the complainant reported the matter of fraudulent transaction to the O.P. Bank through telephone to their toll free number. On the next day i.e., on 05.09.2022 complainant visited the Khayerpur branch of SBI and enquired about his SB Account and dealing clerk of the bank confirmed that 05 nos. of UPI transaction were done on 04.09.2022. complainant informed the dealing clerk that he did not register any UPI Service from this SB Account nor availed any internet banking services. There after the complainant contacted with the Branch manger and narrated the fact but the Branch Manager told that in case case of UPI transaction the banker has no liability.

1.4 The complainant submitted written complaint to the bank. But the Bank did not take any action for refund of the amount of unauthorized transaction amounting to Rs.41,305/-.

1.5 Legal notice was sent on 19.02.2022 and the O.P. Replied to said Legal Notice on 24.09.2022 whereby the O.P. denied about the contents of the Legal Notice and discharged their liability whimsically.

1.6 Hence, this complaint before this Commission praying for refund of the amount of Rs.41,305/- along with compensation and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively.

2. The O.P. resisted the case by filing written objection denying all the allegations against them as leveled by the complainant in his complaint petition.

2.1 The main contention of the O.P. is that the complainant did not submit copy of investigation report as per advise of the O.P. Bank to file complaint before the Cyber Crime Cell of the Police Department. As per guidelines in case of any fraudulent transaction from bank account it is required to lodge complaint to the police station and also the account holder required to inform the bank about the fraudulent transaction so that bank can also take up the issue as per RBI guidelines. As it appeared that the account holder did not inform the bank and also did not lodge any complaint to the police station within 15 days, the notice giver is not entitled to get any refund from the bank. There is no guilty of any unfair trade practice or any deficient services or negligence on the pat of the O.P.

3. Both side submitted evidence on affidavit.

4. Hearing argument the following is taken up for discussion and decision:-

(I)Whether the O.P. Bank is liable for the alleged 5 fraudulent transactions for Rs.40,305/- from the account of the complainant and pay compensation?

DECISION AND REASONS:-

5. We consider the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India vide No. RBI/2017-18/19 dated 6th July, 2017. Point No. 3 and 4 of the guideline are advisory to the Bank for strengthening the system and procedure of the Bank. Point no. 5 is also advisory to the bank to alert and educate the customer at large about the procedure with a view to provide better service to the customer and point no. 6 and 7 inclusive of Table 1 are reproduced below:-

“Strengthening of systems and procedures

3. Broadly, the electronic banking transactions can be divided into two categories:

(i) Remote/online payment transactions (transactions that do not require physical payment instruments to be presented at the point of transactions e.g. internet banking, mobile banking, card not present(CNP) transactions), Pre-paid payment instruments(PPI) and

(ii) Face-to-face/proximity payment transactions (transactions which require the physical payment instrument such as a card or mobile phone to be present at the point of transaction e.g. ATM, POS, etc.)

4. The systems and procedures in banks must be designed to make customers feel safe about carrying out electronic banking transactions. To achieve this, banks must put in place:

(i) appropriate systems and procedures to unsure safety and security of electronic banking transactions carried out by customers;

(ii) robust and dynamic fraud detection and prevention mechanism;

(iii) mechanism to assess the risks(for example, gaps in the bank's existing systems) resulting from unauthorized transactions and measure the liabilities arising out of such events;

(iv) appropriate measures to mitigate the risks and protect themselves against the liabilities arising therefrom; and

(v) a system of continually and repeatedly advising customers on how to protect themselves from electronic banking and payments related fraud.

Reporting of unauthorized transaction by customers to banks

5. Banks must ask their customers to mandatorily register for SMS alerts and wherever available register for e-mail alerts, for electronic banking transactions. The SMS alerts shall mandatorily be sent to the customers, while email alerts may be sent, wherever registered. The customers must be advised to notify their bank of any unauthorized electronic banking transaction at the earliest after the occurrence of such transaction, and informed that the longer the time taken to notify the bank, the higher will be the risk of loss to the bank/ customer. To a facilitate this, banks must provide customers with 24x7 access through multiple channels(at a minimum, via website, phone banking, SMS, e-mail, IVR, a dedicated toll-free helpline, reporting to home branch, etc.) for reporting unauthorized transactions that have taken place and/ or loss or theft of payment instrument such as card, etc. Banks shall also enable customers to instantly respond by “Reply” to the SMS and e-mail alerts and the customers should not be required to search for a web page or an e-mail address to notify the objection, if any. Further, a direct link for lodging the complaints, with specific option to report unauthorized electronic transactions shall be provided by banks on home page of their website. The loss/ fraud reporting system shall also ensure that immediate response(including auto response) is sent to the customers acknowledging the complaint along with the registered complaint number. The communications systems used by bank to sent alerts and receive their responses thereto must record the time and date of delivery of the message and receipt of customer's response, if any, to them. This shall be important in determining the extent of a customer's liability. The banks may not offer facility of electronic transactions, other than ATM cash withdrawals, to customers who do not provide mobile numbers to the bank. On receipt of report of an unauthorized transaction from the customer, banks must take immediate steps to prevent further unauthorized transactions in the account.

Limited liability of a customer

(a) Zero liability of a customer

6. A customer's entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorized 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 unauthorized transaction.

(b) Limited liability of a customer

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

(i) In cases where the loss is due to negligence by 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.

(ii) In cases where the responsibility for the unauthorized 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) on the part of 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

BSBD Accounts 5000

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 upto Rs.25 lakh

Credit card with limit upto Rs.5 lakh 10000

All other Current/Cash Credit/Overdraft Accounts

Credit Card with limit above Rs.5 lakh 25000

5.1 The only point of defense raised by the bank as per RBI guideline is that the customer did not register any complaint with the Police Cyber Crime Department which is mandatory. With all humility we do not found such guideline of the RBI. It is the duty of the Bank to investigate internally and if found anything wrong for which the customer or the bank can not be held responsible, may lodge complaint with the Cyber Crime Department of the Police but it can not be said that the Sine- Qua Non for taking action by the bank to serve the customer better is that the customer has to file complaint before the Cyber Crime Department of Police. Since admittedly the customer did not had UPI that is 'Unified Payment Interface' he can not do any Goggle payment etc. Therefore, without internal difficulty of the Bank it was not possible to the hackers to take away 5 nos. of amount totaling Rs.40,305/- from the account of the complainant. This is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the Bank.

6. The point is decided accordingly.

7. In the result, it is decided that SBI, Khayerpur Branch, Agartala shall refund the sum of Rs.40,305/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of fraudulent transaction i.e., 04.09.2022 till the date of actual payment. This award is inclusive of compensation and litigation cost as we have awarded 7.5% interest against the savings bank account.

8. The case stands disposed of.

9. Supply copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.

Announced.

SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.

Tripura

West Tripura

CC/68/2023

Shri Nripen Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India, to be represented by its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Choudhury, Mrs.R.Shil.

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319