Tripura

StateCommission

A/25/2023

Dr. Narayan Chandra Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S. Choudhury, Mr. Anupam Paul

05 Aug 2024

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala: West Tripura

Case No. A.25 of 2023

 

 

1. Dr. Narayan Chandra Saha,

S/o Late Nirod Behari Saha,

Resident of Flat No.112/Block No.A2(M)-1,

Shyamalima Apartment, New Capital Complex,

P.S. NCC, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin - 799006.

 

2. Smt. Ratna Saha,

D/o Late Pran Ballav Pramanik,

Resident of Flat No. 112/ Block No.A2(M)-1, Shyamalima Apartment,

New Capital Complex, P.S. NCC, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin - 799006.

.… … … … Appellants/Complainants

Vs

 

1. State Bank of India,

Represented by its Chief Manager,

Having its office at SBI Melarmath,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura, Pin – 799001.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Agartala Melarmath Branch,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799001.

                                                            … … … … Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

Before

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh

President, State Commission

 

Smt. Daliya Saha

Member, State Commission

 

Shri Jhantu Debnath

Member, State Commission

 

 

 

 

Present:

For the Appellants:                                                         Mr. Anupam Paul, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                                     Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:                       05.08.2024.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

Heard Mr. Anupam Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-complainants. Also heard Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, State Bank of India.

2. This is a case wherein the complainants are found to be the customers of the respondents, State Bank of India. They maintain a joint savings account with the said Bank. On 05.07.2020, some transactions were made fraudulently by the hackers. It is true that the complainants had responded to the messages sent by the hackers and as such, the complainant seemed to be negligent. However, we find that on the very next day i.e. on 06.07.2020 the complainants-appellant had rushed to the Bank and informed the same in writing requesting to refund the said amount of Rs.3,99,795/-. The complainant-appellant had also registered a written complaint with the local Police Station.
3. Since the Bank did not resolve the dispute and failed to settle the claim of the complainant-appellant, the appellant-complainant was compelled to file the instant complaint before the learned District Commission.
4. Having noticed, the respondents, Sate Bank of India appeared and contested the suit.
5. The evidences were recorded. Thereafter, having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the appellant-complainants were not covered by RBI guidelines and they were found to be negligent.
6. The complainants stated in the complaint petition that they did not share OTP. However, they shared the Aadhaar Card number and ATM Card number.
7. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, Bank has clarified his submission to the extent that the complainant-appellants though have not shared any OTP to the fraudster, but it was directly sent to the fraudster/hacker’s SIM by using his Aadhaar Card and ATM card numbers. According to Mr. Saha the transactions were made out of sheer negligence on behalf of the complainant-appellants.
8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. During the course of hearing, Mr. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted a guideline issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The relevant portions of this guideline may be reproduced here-in-below:-

“Reversal Timeline for Zero Liability/Limited Liability of customer

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:) 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.

9. Clause-9 clearly stipulates that 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). It is further stated that the Bank 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.
10. Clause-10 of the said guideline states that a complaint made by any customer of the Bank has to be resolved within 90 days. The RBI guideline is mandatory to all the Banks.
11. Here it is clearly revealed that the Bank had received the information of unauthorized transactions of the account of the complainant-appellants on the very next day i.e. on 06.07.2020, but the respondents-Bank did not follow the guidelines of RBI mentioned in Clause-9. It further reveals that the Bank also did not follow the instructions laid down in Caluse-10 of the said guideline.
12. In view of the clear and unambiguous language of Clause-9 and Clause-10, we are of the opinion that the learned District Commission has failed to consider the above provisions.
13. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Bank submits that for the interest of Nation and its economy, Financial Institutions like State Bank of India should not be made liable to refund any amount in case any negligence is found on behalf of the customer of the Bank.
14. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, State Bank of India. However, we are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank for the reason that it is not a case to look into the interest of Nation.
15. An individual has suffered a loss of Rs.3,99,795/- and the Bank till now has not been able to prevent transactions by the fraudsters/hackers. Moreover, this Commission also cannot ignore the guidelines framed and circulated by the RBI which appeared to be mandatory to all the Banks/Financial Institutions of the country and particularly, for the reasons stated in the Clause-9 and Clause-10, we are inclined to direct the respondents, State Bank of India to refund the said amount of Rs.3,99,795/- in favour of the appellants, Dr. Narayan Chandra Saha and Smt. Ratna Saha. However, we refrain ourselves to award any compensation and litigation cost, keeping in view that in the present case the complainant-appellants are also found to be responsible for involving themselves in such illegal transactions.

The instant appeal stands allowed and disposed to the extent as indicated above.