Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/590/2023

MADAN LAL GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV GUPTA

04 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                          

Consumer Complaint No.

:

CC/590/2023

Date of Institution

:

21.12.2023

Date of Decision   

:

04/12/2024

 

Madan Lal Gupta Aged 79 years T-9/403, Motiaz Royal Citi, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, 140603.

.....Complainant

Versus

1.    State Bank of India, Through its Branch Manager, Branch office:- SCO-186-188, Sector-17C, Shopping Plaza, Chandigarh.

2.    State Bank of India Headquarters, Through its General Manager, State Bank Bhawan, M.C. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

...Opposite Parties

CORAM :

SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH

PRESIDENT

 

MRS. SURJEET KAUR

MEMBER

 

SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA

MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY

:

Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for complainant

 

:

Sh.Sanjeev Dua, Advocate for OPs

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

  1.        The present consumer complaint has been filed by complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OPs’).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-     
    1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is having  bank account No.00000010 847946824 with OP No.1.  On 30.08.2023, he received a message from mobile No.917483580615 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject mobile number’) at 1:08 PM on his mobile number +91 9872914011 notifying him that his electricity bill of Rs.20/- is due and the same may get disconnected, in case, the issue is not resolved. The copy of the message is Annexure C-1. To resolve the issue, the complainant called the caller of the subject mobile number and the said caller asked him to download an app namely “Team Viewer Quick Support App” and make a payment of Rs.20/- to clear his outstanding bill through net banking or debit card and the same is not possible through UPI. The copy of the call log showing call made and the chat with the number +91 8388889803 with the link for the app are Annexures C-2 and C-3 respectively.  Accordingly, after downloading the aforesaid app, he transferred ₹20/- by using his SBI debit card. After making payment of Rs.20/-, he received a message (Annexure C-4) for the deduction of Rs.20/- from his account for the same. Immediately after that, he received another message of debit of Rs.49,367.50/- (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject transaction’) from his account. A copy of said debit transaction from his account statement is Annexure C-5.  On receiving the SMS with respect to the debit of Rs.49,367.50/-, he realized that something is going wrong with him as he had to make payment of Rs.20/- only. Immediately, he enquired about the said transaction of Rs.49,367.50/- and found that the transaction bearing transaction no.2608677787 of Rs.49376.50 was carried out without sharing any OTP. After knowing the aforesaid fact, he immediately called the Bank's Customer Care Helpline and got his debit card blocked and disabled the net banking service on his account. A copy of the SMS acknowledgement of blocking of debit card is Annexure C-6. He also registered the complaint with the bank on 30.08.2023. A copy of complaint acknowledgement SMS is Annexure C-7. He also reported the incident to the cybercrime cell of the police as directed by the Bank. Thereafter, he gave a written complaint to the OPs on 02/09/23 who assured that the issue will be resolved within a maximum period of 90 days.  The copies of the e-mails, complaint lodged by the complainant, RTI application and information are Annexures C-8 to C-11. Finally, the complainant received a message from the OPs on 17.11.2023 (Annexure C-12) that his claim has been rejected and closed. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
    2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, mis-joinder of necessary parties and also that the complainant has deliberately shared the debit card credentials to the third party and he has filed the false and frivolous complaint. On merits, it is averred that the complainant is having his account with the OPs-Bank but no authorized person of the OPs ever advised him to download any third party application. Since the complainant has admitted that he himself downloaded the third party application on receiving the call of third person and thereafter he himself had firstly transferred the amount of ₹20/- and the subject transaction was also made by him by sharing the credentials of the debit card with the third party, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs especially when the OPs had circulated the messages to its customer and public at large to refrain from sharing any confidential information including the bank payment credentials, OTP etc. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
    3. The complainant chose not to file the rejoinder.
  2.        In order to prove their respective claims the contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
  3.        We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
    1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is having bank account with OP No.1 and on 30.08.2023 at 1:08PM on receiving  a call from the mobile No.917483580615 on the registered mobile number of the complainant asking him to download the app namely Team Viewer Quick Support  as the payment of ₹20/- can be made by using the debit card for the clearance of the electricity dues and accordingly he firstly installed the said app and thereafter transferred the amount of ₹20/- by using his debit card, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant had transferred the subject amount by using the debit card by sharing the OTP etc. and the subject transaction had taken place due to the negligence of the OPs and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant himself has made the subject transaction through the aforesaid app, by using the debit card and there is no liability of the OPs and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
    2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the entire documentary evidence led by the parties and for that purpose the documents tendered by the parties are required to be scanned carefully
    3. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the SMS message received from the fraudster, which indicates that the complainant was informed that the electricity power will be disconnected at 9:30PM due to non-payment of the dues. Annexure C-2 is the subject mobile number from which the call was received by the complainant and he had also chat with him. Annexure C-3 is the SMS chat through which the fraudster had sent link of the app and advised the complainant to download the same. Annexure C-4 is the message received with respect to the debit of ₹20/- from the account of the complainant. Annexure C-5 is the account statement of the complainant which clearly indicates that on 30.08.2023 first transaction of ₹20/- was debited from the account of the complainant and on the same date the subject amount was debited from the account of the complainant and both the transactions had taken place on account of the use of the debit card and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

  1. Thus, one thing is clear from the aforesaid account statement having been proved by the complainant that even the subject transaction has only taken place when the complainant firstly used the debit card and shared the credentials thereof and the case of the complainant that he has not shared the OTP etc. is without any merit.
  2. Moreover, when it is an admitted case of the complainant that after the blockage of the subject credit card,  no transaction had taken place, to our mind even the case of the complainant is not covered under part (a) i.e. Zero Liability of a Customer of the RBI guidelines. The relevant portion of the RBI guidelines is reproduced as under:-

“RBI/2017-18/15                      July 6, 2017

DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18     

“No.________ Dated:

Limited Liability of a Customer

(a)    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

(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 a customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorised transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorised transaction shall be bone by the bank

(ii)    In cases where the responsibility for the unauthorised 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.”

  1. Reliance here is also placed upon the order passed by our own Hon'ble State Commission in FA No.72 of 2021 titled as Nidhi Gupta vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and ors, wherein it was held as under

"going through the material available on record very carefully, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Bare perusal of Annexures R2/2 and R-2/3 makes it abundantly clear that the disputed transactions took place, only after One Time Password (OTP) was sent on the registered mobile number of the appellant. There is nothing on record to prove that the card of the complainant was misused by any third party. It is not the case of the appellant that the card was lost or stolen. Per documents on record, it is very much established that the alleged transactions of Rs. 10,000/- each were done at Airtel Payment through secured mode by using second factor authentication ie. One Time Password. No negligence on the part of the respondents can be attributed, if the appellant herself did not take due care and caution while handling her credit card Thus, as rightly held by the Ld. District Commission, the actual transaction had taken place only after the appellant shared the details qua OTP etc. Thus, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity in impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission,"

  1. In the case in hand as it stands proved on record that the complainant himself has shared the payment credentials i.e. debit card particulars while making the alleged transactions by using the third party app and only after the aforesaid transactions, the complainant had blocked the debit card, it is safe to hold that the aforesaid loss is due to the negligence of the complainant himself and even as per the RBI guidelines, he has to bear the entire loss especially when it is an admitted case of the parties that after the blockage of the debit card, no transaction has taken place.
  1. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
  2. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
  3. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

04/12/2024

 

 

 

Sd/-

[Pawanjit Singh]

President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sd/-

 

 

 

[Surjeet Kaur]

Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sd/-

 

 

 

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.