Passed  by Shri Atul D. Alsi, Hon’ble President.

1. The complainant has filed complaint case against O.P. for reversal disputed transaction of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant account and thereby claiming compensation and cost with interest.

The  story in short is as under,

2. The complainant has saving bank account with O.P. with debit card with registered mobile no.9422105672 on 15^th Feb 2020 at around 1.18 p.m. the complainant No.1 received a message and informed that his KYC is suspended for further assistance he should contact on mobile-8389072587. The complainant called back on said number but he was asked to download Quick Support App. and thereafter was also ask to deposit Rs.10,000/-through his debit card towards security deposit and accordingly complaint made payment and thereafter two transactions amounting to Rs.10,000/- each and one transaction amounting to Rs.40,000 and another transaction amounting to Rs.20,000 were carried out by using his debit card. In meantime complaint received a call from O.P.for confirmation of transaction amounted to Rs.40,000/- to which complaint replied he was not authorised and thereafter that transaction of Rs.40,000/- was blocked after blocking the transaction of Rs.40,000/- there was another transactions amounting to Rs.20,000/- which was passed by bank without any verification. The bank was in knowledge of fraudulent transaction Rs.40,000/-to verify airtel payment but still did not initiate any action against beneficiary transaction.  The complainant also registered police complaint and reported the matter with O.P.   The O.P. unable to debit and freeze the beneficiary account inspite received timely instruction it amounts to deficiency in service and violation of RBI master circular date 1.7.2015 at 5.17 page No.31 guideline are provided for securing electronic payment transaction.  The O.P. has failed to provide security as per RBI kyc guidelines and failed to detect suspicious transaction with bank therefore it amount to deficiency in service therefore present complaint is filed.
3. The O.P. filed reply and denied allegation and admitted that the O.P. has issued SBI credit card to the complainant as per application with KYC documents moved by the complainant.  It is the responsibility of complainant to keep card information and passwords with himself only and not to share with any party.  The complaint has downloaded the quick app as per instructions given by third party with unknown number and made payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000 by Debit card. The complainant has shared the message and OTP number on his own. Therefore there is no deficiency on the part of O.P. and in that case the circular issued by RBI date 6.7.2017 in cases were loss is due to negligence of customer such as were the customer has shared the credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he report the unauthorised transitions to the bank therefore the complainant is not liable for any kind of compensation and there is no Unfair Trade Practice on the part of O.P.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. Counsel for complainant argued that complaint after realisation of two transaction amounting to Rs.10,000/- & Rs.20,000/- were carried out using his credit card reported the matter to the O.P. company through online mechanism and the O.P. had unable to put hold on beneficiary account in spite of receiving timely complaint.  The beneficiaries of both the transactions i.e. of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- were different and hence this count of Rs.20,000/- passed. The O.P. has closed the complaint with findings that the transaction has been performed in secured manner which has been validated by sharing OTP over internet which was delivered on complainant registered mobile.  Non sending of messages about deduction of money from complainant account except the message of OTP from O.P. does amount to deficiency of service. The O.P. company without initiating any action, the complainant here, in this case was not negligent but it was an accident to install screen sharing app. without knowledge and understanding.  The accident is un-designed, sudden or unexpected event; mishap; misfortune; disaster. The O.P. fails to take proper investigation to secure the payment of transaction from credit card therefore it amounts to deficiency in service and therefore O.P. is liable to compensate as per judgement in M/s. Leatheroid Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canera Bank , decided on 6/02/2019.  Hon’ble apex court holding that the compliant had suffered the loss because of inaction and negligence on the part of bank.  In the present circumstances the uploading of remote screen shared on mobile of complainant was accidental act therefore it cannot be term as negligence or contributory negligence hence the provision of Zero liability circular of RBI is applicable and complainant is entitle for reversal of amount of Rs.40,000/- for the fraudulent transaction as per judgment given by National Commission, New Delhi in the matter of  SBI Vs.  JCS Kataky holding that once the complaint made for unauthorised withdrawn it is the duty of bank to have carried out necessary verification in the matter, rather that washing their hands from the liability. In the present case wherein without holding any meaningful investigation the O.P. has washing their hands with intention to avoid liability. The similar view has been taken and held by State Consumer Commission, Chandigrah in A/352/2018 dated 26.8.2019 by confirming the order of District Consumer Commission to penalise the respondent card company, therefore complaint may be allowed as prayed.
5. The counsel for O.P. argued that as per agreement executed between complainant and O.P. a dispute and claim arose shall be settled by arbitration as per Arbitration Act, 1996 hence the commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complaint downloaded quick app as per instruction of third party and shared OTP and card information with third party with unknown number as per admission given by complainant in compliant. In that case the O.P. is not liable to compensate as per circular issued by RBI in respect of limited liability on July 2017. For negligence on the part of complainant in conducting online transactions, after receipt of complaint the O.P.has conducted the investigation and it is found that due to the negligence on the part of complainant by downloading unauthorised app and sharing OTP which is in contravention of instruction issued by O.P. from time to time in public by various modes of information. Therefore the complaint is deserved to be dismissed with cost.
   3582407835169.  
6. The O.P. has issued credit card to the complainant on 15.2.2020. The complainant received message on his mobile informed that his Paytem kyc is suspended and for further assistant the compliant should contact on mobile No.8389072587. The complainant called back on said number at around 4 p.m. and he was ask to download Quick Support App. and therefore complaint was ask to deposit Rs.10,000/- and accordingly compliant made payment of Rs. 10,000/- to his credit card and later the complainant realised that two transaction amounting to Rs.10,000/- and one transaction of Rs.40,000/- and another transaction of Rs.20,000/- were carried out by using his debit card illegally therefore the complainant immediately reported to block the card through helpline and registered complaint with a police on 15.2.2020.
7. If the complainant has received the call from some unknown number it is a responsibility of complainant not to share the information of credit card and password to any one or third party.  The complainant has himself downloaded Quick App. and as per instruction given by third party and share the details including OTP to third party.  The O.P. as well as banking company use to tell not to share the information of debit card and credit card with OTP to anyone. The complainant has himself shared the OTP with third party therefore it is not an accident act.  It is term as negligence on the part of complainant therefore the circular issued by RBI in respect Zero liability dated 6th July 2017 bearing RBI/2017-18/15 stating that in case of loss is due to negligence by customer by sharing the payment credential the customer bear the entire loss.  On the other hand after receipt the inquiry from customer care of O.P. confirming transaction amounting to RS.40,000/- and as per reply of complainant the O.P. has blocked the transaction of Rs.40,000/- but thereafter the O.P. has not blocked further transactions as per complaint and Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn unauthorisely therefore it amounts to negligence on the part of O.P. therefore O.P. is liable to pay Rs.20,000/- alongwith Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental torture and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to complainant as per following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards unauthorised withdrawal of money from complainants account inspite of complaint-to block the transaction was given to O.P.
3. The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental torture and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation.

Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.