Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/318/2023

NAIB SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SURESH KUMAR

29 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/318/2023
Date of Institution	:	27/6/2023
Date of Decision	:	29/8/2024

 

Naib Singh Aged 64 yrs, s/o Sh Ram Sarup, resident of #581, Saini Vihar Phase-2, Baltana, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab.

...Complainant

Versus

 

1. State Bank of India, Branch Raipur Kalan, U.T. Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2. Banking Ombudsman, c/o Reserve Bank of India Building, 4th Floor, Sector 17,  Chandigarh..

...Opposite Party

 

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

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	Complaint qua OP No.2 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.8.2023.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1.   Briefly stated on 29.1.2023 when the complainant has  withdrawn Rs.9500/- from the ATM of Opposite party No.1 and waiting for message some unknown person asked the complainant to give his SBI debit card to him so that he may help the complainant to get the mini statement from the ATM. Then within no time that unknown person returned the SBI DEBIT to the Complainant stating that he had received urgent call and has to go immediately. After that the complainant tried many times to get the mini statement from that ATM (Machine) but didn't succeed. Then the complainant came to his home and told the story to his Son Saravjit Singh Who after seeing the SBI DEBIT Card, asked the Complainant that this SBI DEBIT CARD was exchanged by someone and this was not his SBI DEBIT CARD. After that the complainant alongwith his son visited to the Bank Opposite party No.1 at Raipur Kalan and told the complete story to the officer in the Bank. The officer available in the Bank checked the account statement and told the complainant that 4 (four) transactions (i.e. for Rs 49,900/-, 24,990/-, 9500/-, 9500/-) had been made for withdrawal of cash from the account of the complainant after withdrawal of
Rs9,500/- by the complainant from the SBI ATM. The complainant gave an application which was written on direction of the Bank Manager to Opposite party No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had neither received any massage on his registered mobile number nor had received an OTP on his registered mobile number till he approached to the Manager  of Opposite party No.1 i.e. by 6.49 PM on 29^th  Jan 2023. Accordingly, Opposite party No 1 blocked the SBI DEBIT CARD after receiving the application. At 6.50PM, the complainant received massage regarding blocking of his SBI Debit Card ending 4036. After blocking the SBI Debit Card, at 9.42PM on the same day, the complainant received a massage for internet Banking login Password which is annexed as per Annexure C-3. After blockage of the SBI Debit Card, the complainant received withdrawal massage on the same day 29.01.2023 at 9.53 PM for his account Balance as Rs 6,33,170.69 on withdrawal of Rs 9500/-, 9500/- 24,990/-, 49,900/- and 9500/-. It is pertinent to mention here that this massage was received after three hours of blocking of the SBI debit card. At 10.07 PM on 29.01.2023, the complainant received one more massage stating, "your SBI Debit Card is not Processed Successfully". At 10.15PM on the same day i.e. 29.01.2023, the complainant received massage stating "Case 183874210 is created for the complaint registered by you and is expected to be resolved within 10 Days." The complainant had also given a complaint on the same day i.e. 29.01.2023 to the In-charge of Police Post Baltana which was registered at No 65/5D/PP blt dated 30.01.2023 but nothing had been done by the police in this regard till date. As per RBI instruction dated 6.7.2017  there is zero liability of a customer  and the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the disputed amount to the complainant. But despite repeated requests nothing was done. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2.   The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that after the receipt of the complaint, the matter was investigated and it was observed by the concerned internal department that the disputed transactions have taken place through ORIGINAL ATM card as cash transactions on OFF Us ATM have been carried out through EMV ATM Card on AMV ATM with mode of authorization being chip based which clearly shows that the card is not a cloned one and the customer has been negligent in keeping his ATM card/PIN Safe. It has further been observed that the SMS Alerts were delivered to the complainant on real time basis and the security, handling and secrecy of the ATM Card and the credentials is the duty of the account holder. It has further been observed that any negligence on the part of the customer/complainant is only his liability. Thus, as such complainant is responsible for not protecting his ATM card/PIN details which led to disputed transactions and as such the responsibility rests with the customer and the bank is not liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.

3.  Complaint qua OP No.2 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.8.2023.

4.  Replication was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.

5.   Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

6.   We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.

7.   The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that SMS  by Opposite party No.1 bank was delivered to him very late after the fraudulent  transaction by the fraudster. It has been alleged that message of blocking of ATM/Debit card was received at 6:50 PM  which is apparent from Annexure C-2 the text message but got the message of  all four fraudulent transactions after the blockage of debit card at 9:53 PM as is apparent from Annexure C-4. Even the complaint of the complainant was created on the bank website on the same day as is evident from Annexure C-6 at 10:15 PM.  But despite of that, the genuine claim of the complainant was refused by the Opposite party No.1 bank on the ground of discloser of secret credential by the complainant himself.

8.   The stand taken by the Opposite party bank is that it is the complainant who shared the secrete credential  details of  the debit card to the third person and as such there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite party bank.

9. After going through the documents on record, it is abundantly clear from clause 5 of the guidelines of the RBI Annexure C-12 that   loss/fraud reporting system should be very smooth, specific option to report unauthorised electronic transactions shall be provided by banks on home page of their website. The loss/ fraud reporting system shall also ensure that immediate response (including auto response) is sent to the customers acknowledging the complaint along with the registered complaint number. The communication systems used by banks to send alerts and receive their responses thereto must record the time and date of delivery of the message and receipt of customer's response, if any, to them. This shall be important in determining the extent of a customer's liability. On receipt of report of an unauthorised transaction from the customer, banks must take immediate steps to prevent further unauthorised transactions in the account.
10. Further as per clause 6a of RBI guidelines the liability of the customer is zero and the relevant portion of clause 6a is as under:-

“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:

1. Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).
2. 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.”

 

11. Notably the Opposite party No.1 stated  through its written statement that complainant did not report the matter to Opposite party No.1 bank rather the system generated itself the message of blocking the card noting the very frequency of fraudulent transactions. But as per page 19 of the Annexure R-1  as well as Annexure C-2 the complainant received the message at 6:50 pm.  of blocking the debit card at 18:49 hrs sent by Opposite party on 29.1.2023. The relevant portion of the said message is reproduced as under:-

“Dear Customer, Your SBI Debit Card ending with 4036 has been blocked on 29-Jan-23 at 18:49 Hrs at your request. Never, Never share your PIN / OTP/CVV with anyone - SBI.

                             6:50 pm”

12. Perusal of contents of above SMs reveals that at the request of the complainant only the ATM/debit card was blocked. Otherwise there must be mention of blocking the card by the bank with apprehension of fraud due to frequent transactions. Hence to our mind the Opposite party No.1 bank has taken dual stand and as such there is deficiency on its part and the complaint is liable to be allowed.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite party No.1 is directed as under:-

1. to refund ₹93,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of complaint till onwards
2. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14. This order be complied with by the Opposite party No.1 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.
15. Complaint qua Opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
17. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 29/08/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member