The complaint case was contested by the OPs and the arguments were advanced by both sides along with filing of W/V, Evidence and BNA on 25.05.2023 by Branch Manager, SBI that the complaint is not maintainable and hits the law of limitation and estoppels etc. The OP stated that it is the prime responsibility of the customer / account holder to ensure safe keeping of his own account number, PIN and other particulars of the account in a confidential manner and in this case the complainant himself is solely responsible for withdrawal of money by using his App. The OP submitted that the complainant filled documents and submitted to bank after 6 months and as such there was no delay on the part of the bank. The OP claimed that the complainant is responsible for the SMS alert that he must have received in the mobile number linked to his account. Even if an online fraud transaction occurred then the complainant was guilty of his wrong for sharing and disclosing security features of his account. The redressal of the grievance is lying with the police authorities and not with the bank for which a general diary dated 11.03.2021 and FIR dated 20.03.21 have been lodged, who are the competent authority to deal with such alleged Cyber Crimes. And for such online fraud due to the latches and lack of maintaining safety, security and cyber discipline by complainant, the bank cannot be held responsible for any deficiency of service or negligence who has maintained banking code and standards, RBI guidelines and COPRA imputed upon the bank.

From the argument and counter arguments read with the documents and after examining the exhibits, it appears that out of 5 disputed transactions all dated 11.03.2021, 4 of them comprises of transactions for Rs.25,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- which were on online basis. But the 5^th transaction for Rs.20,000/- was from ATM as per bank statement that has been considered as unauthorized by the complainant. The complainant has not dealt this issue in complaint petitions or GD or FIR that how the third party got access to the ATM withdrawal. Also, the total of the 5 transactions from the saving account works out to be Rs 1,55,000/-instead of Rs. 1,52,000/- as mentioned in the complaint petition.

Secondly, another bank statement is exhibited from which it appears that by creating an overdraft, an amount of Rs.1,34,900/- was further withdrawn against existing FD of Rs.1,35,000/-.

In the instant case, it appears from exhibited documents that the first unauthorized transaction took place from the savings bank account on 11.03.2021 for an amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- and not Rs. 1,52,000/- as stated by complainant, that appears to be an error apparent. Again Rs. 1,34,990/- was withdrawn on 11.03.2021 by drawing an overdraft amount, created out of the existing FD. The said disputed transactions were reported by the complainant as unauthorized to bank by letter dated 12.03.2021 duly acknowledged within next day.

Hence there is no dispute about the transactions but the matter centres around and needs to be examined whether the deficiency was with the bank or customer or elsewhere or in the system and the consequential liability.

The complainant conceded in his complaint petition about getting a telephone call from unknown number on the same day of unauthorized transactions, when he considers himself being duped by sharing all his details and leaving full control of his bank accounts to third parties by remote sharing through mobile Application. Intimations were served by complainant as per GD on 11.03.2021 at local PS followed by report to the branch of the bank against acknowledgement on the very next day on 12.03.2021 and also at Cyber Crime Cell and also by lodging FIR on 20.03.2021.

There is no cogent evidence available about the failure from the banking side except that of the customer’s evidence in chief which is not much of evidentiary value being without any supporting documents.

The Reserve Bank of India being the regulatory authority for financial safety has provided the liability of banks and the customers through guidelines for online transactions RBI/2017-18/15 (DBR no Leg. BC. 78.09.07.005/2017-18) dated 6^th July 2017.The RBI guidelines deals with UPI frauds in banks, unauthorized transaction on credit card and debit cards and other online modes which require banks to refund the amount. As per guidelines, the banks are not liable for refund, if unauthorized transaction is due to details disclosed by the customer. There are specific bank guidelines regarding online fraud complaints which require customers not to disclose private information like an OTP, CVV, MPIN etc. In the case in hand, it is mentioned in the foot note of the bank statement exhibited by complainant stating inter alia not to share ATM, Debit /Credit Card No., PIN and OTP with anyone over mail, SMS, phone call or any other media with a warning that bank never asks for such information.

On the other hand, RBI guidelines for unauthorized transactions clearly provide limited liability of customers. In case of an unauthorized transaction, complaint is received within 3 days and there is no negligence on part of the customer, full refund is provided. Also, if financial fraud takes place due to contributory fraud or negligence of the bank, the customer enjoys zero liability regardless of whether or not the unauthorized transaction complaint is lodged with the bank. Once the banker comes to know about bank frauds complaints, any further unauthorized transaction has to be borne by the bank only. If neither the bank nor the customer is at fault and third party breach led to unauthorized transaction complaint, the timeline wise RBI guideline is available in the public domain. The RBI Guidelines vide no RBI/2017-18/15 (DBR no Leg. BC. 78.09.07.005/2017-18) dated 6^th July 2017 exhibited by the Ld. Advocate of the OP during final arguments, lends support to the same.

However, this is not a case herein.

It is the customer’s negligence which resulted in unauthorized transactions, the customer has to bear all loss.

The reportable judgement of the Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of Civil Appeal no. 9352 of 2019 (SLP[C] no 3738 of 2019) cited by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant is not of much help in support of his case since the fact of the case is absolutely on different context and footings wherein the complainant school never approached the OP bank for net banking whereas the unauthorized transaction took place from complainant school’s account by linking mobile of another customer without his knowledge, by the third party miscreants.

Therefore it is held that since the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to substantiate that the alleged fraudulent transactions took place because of the bank’s fault or security lapses and since it is the admitted position of the complainant that the fraudulent transaction took place on the same day just after the remote sharing of Applications with third parties from his registered mobile, hence, the arguments of the complainant has no legs to stand upon. As such the bank cannot be held responsible for the irregular way of sharing all personal details to unknown tele-callers by the complainant to wriggle out of his liability. Any such relief as prayed for, if given, must be in conformity with the directions issued by the RBI- which is responsible for safekeeping of the banking systems and maintaining checks and balances in the same.