Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/537/2023

ANJANA DEVI NOW DECEASED THROUGH SOMESH KAISTHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

PULKIT JAIN

05 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/537/2023
Date of Institution	:	14.11.2023
Date of Decision	:	05/07 /2024

 

Anjana Devi (now deceased, through Sh. Somesh Kaistha, her A/c Nominee and her Legal Heir), R/o Flat No.1197, 2nd Floor, Universal Enclave, Near Banyan Tree School, Sector-48B, Chandigarh-160047.

… Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

State Bank of India, Naya Nangal, Ropar, District Roop Nagar (Pb.) through its Authorised Officer/Representative.

… Opposite Parties.

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Pulkit Jain,  Advocate for complainant
	:	OPs exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the mother (now deceased) of the complainant Smt. Anjana Devi (hereinafter to be referred as account holder)  was having saving account  NO.33203893931  with the OP bank  died on 7.9.2023 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant being her legal heir  as well as nominee. The copy of death certificate is annexed as Annexure C-1. On 7.1.2023 at 7:42 pm a phone call  was received from OP bank  on the registered mobile number of the mother (now deceased) of the complainant the account holder and it was noticed by the wife of the complainant who received the call  that few unusual transactions have taken place from the account of  the account holder and as at that time the  account holder was completely bed ridden , it was highly difficult for her to understand how the said transaction had taken place. Immediately the wife of the complainant informed the complainant about the call and on this the balance in the account of the mother of the complainant was checked and it was found that three transactions of Rs.2,13,422/- , 24,444/- and 58,861/-  totaling to Rs.2,96,727/-  have taken place and the said amounts were debited from the account of the account holder. Messages qua the said transactions  were sent by the OP bank on 7.1.2023 at 7:42 p.m.  The copies of statement of account is annexed as Annexure A-4 and copies of the Screenshots of messages and phone call log are  annexed as Annexure C-5 (colly). On seeing the said transaction the  complainant and his mother and wife went under a shock  as neither the complainant nor his family member had shared any OTP nor they had clicked on any link and in this manner the transactions of Rs.2,96,727/- had taken place from the account of the account holder. The complainant registered a complaint No.175537401 with the OP and had also approached the Cyber Cell, Chandigarh and registered a complaint and FIR Annexure C-10 was also registered.  The OP asked the complainant to submit necessary  documents and information and accordingly the complainant submitted all the documents and information.  ON 10.2.2023 the complainant was shocked to know that the OP had intimated the complainant that  it was unable to resolve the grievance by 9.2.2023 and it  requires time  to resolve the issue. Thereafter many correspondences had taken place between the parties through various emails Annexure C-7(colly)  but with no result. Till date the OP has failed to resolve the issue and the cyber cell has also not done anything and the amount of Rs.2,96,927/- has illegally been debited from the account of the account holder despite of the fact that the complainant and his family members never shared password and OTP, MPIN or card number  with any third person.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, the complainant sent legal notice  Annexure C-11. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP  was properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 14.3.2024.

2. In order to prove their case, complainant has tendered/proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the  complainant that  the mother of the complainant (now deceased) the account holder of the subject account was  having her saving account with the OP bank  and on 7.1.2023   through three transactions an amount of Rs.2,96,927/-  was debited from the account of the mother of the complainant  immediately after receiving unknown call on the registered mobile number of the mother (now deceased) of the complainant and at that time the account holder was totally bed ridden and immediately after that the matter was brought to the notice of the OP bank about the said illegal  transaction  as is also evident from Annexure C-5 (colly) the messages received qua the transactions as well as the complaint lodged by the complainant with the OP bank and also a complaint was also lodged with cyber cell Chandigarh and in the month  of September 2023 the account holder died and the present complaint is being filed by the complainant being her legal heir and nominee and till date neither the cyber cell nor the OP bank has resolved  the issue qua the illegal transactions, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  there is any deficiency on the part of the OP bank and for that purpose the  documentary evidence led by the complainant is required to be scanned carefully.
   2. The case of the complainant is that neither the account holder nor any family member of the complainant has ever shared the OTP, MPIN or card number  with any third person before the subject transaction taken place. It is further evident from Annexure C-6  that the OP on receiving information vide letter dated 25.1.2023 asked the complainant to submit certain documents which were accordingly submitted by the complainant with the OP bank as is also evident from Annexure C-7(colly). Annexure
      C-9 further indicates that the OP bank again assured the complainant vide mail dated 10.2.2023  that the matter will be resolved by 14.3.2023.
   3. It is an admitted case of the complainant that the OP has failed to resolve the issue till date despite of having received copy of FIR Annexure C-10  lodged by the complainant and other documents and legal notice Annexure C-11 , which is clear cut deficiency on the part of the OP bank especially when it stands proved on record that as even as per RBI guidelines nothing has come on record that the complainant and his family ever shared any OTP or any other secret credential with the third person. The Reserve Bank of India guidelines July 6, 2017 regarding zero liability of  customer  is as under:-

 

“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 transaction.” 

 

4.  In the instant case, when it stands proved on record that  the complainant has informed the OP bank about the unauthorized  transactions within three workings days and further fraud has been committed with the account holder with respect to the unauthorized transactions which has taken place without the sharing of secret credentials by the account holder or complainant hence, the case of the complainant is covered under the aforesaid clause of having zero liability of the customer/complainant. Moreover, the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹2,96,727/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date when the subject transactions had  taken place till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her/him/them;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

5. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 05/07/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member