IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 24th day of August, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.114/2021 (Filed on 14/07/2021)
Complainant : Robin Thomas,
S/o. P.U. Thomas,
Illathuparambu House,
Channanikadu P.O,.
Panachickadu village,
Kottayam – 686533
(Adv. Akash K.R.)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Thirunakkara Branch S. Road,
Pulimoodu Junction,
Kottayam – 01
(Adv. P.G. Girija)
(2) The Manager,
SBI Card Centre – A,
7th Floor, Alapat Heritage,
M.G. Road North End,
Cochin – 682035
(Adv. Radhika Rajendran and
Adv. Ramees Kassim)
O R D E R
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
The complainant is having an account with the first opposite party vide account No. 30202431809. The complainant induced by the officers and customer service executives of the opposite parties subscribed to the BPCL credit card with the number 4611 1991 4437 5063.On 28/ 05/2021 the complainant received a call from the mobile number 8650085967 to his personal mobile number 9447806715. The caller introduced himself as Sajesh Patel, an executive of the first opposite party and informed that the opposite parties are increasing the credit limit, for which the complainant has to follow his instructions. The caller proved his credibility by reiterating the personal and professional information which he had shared with opposite parties. The caller then instructed the complainant to send a message to a particular number for verification purpose. The complainant followed the instructions given by the caller with the belief that he is a representative of the opposite parties. The complainant noticed an unauthorized transaction in his credit card account after completion of the call. It is found that an amount of Rs 49,490/- and an amount of Rs24, 240/- are debited from the account to MAGIC BRICKS REALITY SER New Delhi. The complainant had never given any instructions for these payments.
Complainant contacted the second opposite party and had given an email to the customer care .The complainant was very cautious in using bank account and credit card.
The opposite parties had debited an amount of Rs 73,730/- from the credit account of the complainant without the knowledge of the complainant and without getting any instructions from the complainant. The details submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties, the details of his bank account and the details of his credit facility got leaked from the opposite parties. The unsecured and unprotected storage of information of the complainant by the opposite parties have caused the complainant a loss of an amount of Rs.73,730/-. The loss of information relating to a customer to strangers and enabling the unauthorized use of the credit facility amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This complaint is filed for getting a refund of Rs.73,730/- and a compensation of Rs 1,00,000 /-along with Rs 25,000/- as cost for this litigation.
On admission of the complaint, the copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
The version of the first opposite party is that the complainant is maintaining an SB account with the first opposite party but he had not lost any amount from the SB account. The allegation that the first opposite party and its officers induced the complainant to avail the credit card facility is false. The first opposite party is doing banking business only and it has no business of issuing credit cards. The State Bank of India and SBI Cards and payment Services Ltd are two different legal entities having separate legal existence. The first opposite party never deputed anyone to call the complainant. The first opposite party is not aware of the credit card details of the complainant.
The first opposite party has not disclosed the details of the SB account of
the complainant to anybody. The first opposite party has duly protected the SB account details of the complainant as confidential. It is admitted in the petition that the complainant himself had given the confidential details. It is clear that the complainant negligently followed instructions of a stranger and the alleged incident happened, for which this opposite party is not liable. The amounts of Rs.49,490/- and Rs.24,240/- are debited from credit card limits and not from the SB account. The complainant failed to exercise due diligence and care in the matter of keeping his credit card details confidential.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for the complaint from the first opposite party.
The version of the second opposite party is that the complainant had expressed interest for the credit card and submitted an application along with the necessary KYC documents. The credit card was issued to him on 23/06/2018. The complaint regarding a call from a number, informing the complainant about increasing the credit limit of the card are the facts best known to the complainant. This opposite party has always by text messages, mails etc. enlightened all customers about the fraudulent calls and warned them not to share personal credentials like pin, password, OTP, card number, CVV, expiry date, etc. to anyone. The complainant himself admitted of sharing of secret information.
The complainant had shared his personal credentials including card number, CVV number, and dynamic OTP received in his registered mobile number. Accordingly, the transaction for an amount of Rs49, 490/- and Rs.24,240/- was done on 28/5/2021 by using the complainant’s card. It is admitted by the complainant that he had followed the instructions given by the caller and shared the details of his card and thereafter noticed the unauthorized transactions on his card.
The transaction details reveal the fact that the one-time password (OTP) was successfully delivered on the registered mobile number of the complainant and the transaction alert SMS was delivered to the registered mobile number of the complainant.OTP for transaction of Rs 49,490/- was delivered to the registered mobile number 9447806715 on 28/05/2021 at 1.15:43:53 and 1.15:50:45.The Dynamic OTP for transaction of Rs 24,240/- was delivered to
the registered mobile number 9447806715 on 28/05/2021 at 1. 15 :54:09.
The SMS messages were delivered to the registered mobile number 9447806715 at 3:51:16 PM on 28/05/2021 about spending of Rs 49,400/-from the card ending with 5063 at Magic Bricks Realty Ser on 28/05/21 and another SMS at 3:54:39 PM on 28/05/21 about spending of Rs 24,240/- from the card ending with 5063 at Magic Bricks Realty Ser on 28/05/21.
The complainant sent a mail dated 31/05/2021 disputing the transactions and a reply was given on the same day to raise the dispute if the said transactions are not settled by the merchant as the opposite party or any banks or financial institutions has no authority /right to stop the 3 D secured transactions as per RBI circular.
Upon receiving an email complaint from the complainant, an investigation was initiated about the alleged transactions and it was found that the transaction was performed in a secure manner and it was validated by the card CVV of the complainant and dynamic one-time password (OTP) over internet.
The RBI Master Circular dated 6/07/2017 States that customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorized transactions where the loss is due to negligence by a customer where he has shared the payment credentials and the customer will bear the entire lose until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the bank.
The averment that the details submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties has got leaked and the same had resulted in the unauthorized use of the credit card is absolutely misleading. It is in this event that the complainant had contributed to the fraud committed by a stranger by sharing the personal credentials including the dynamic OTP. The complainant is not eligible for any reliefs after having aided to the unauthorized transaction by sharing his credit card details including CVV and dynamic OTP to a stranger. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the second opposite party.
The complainant filed the proof affidavit and marked exhibits A1 to A3.
Suma.S, Chief Manager of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit. Mridula, Legal Manager of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit. No documentary evidence from the opposite parties.
On the basis of the complaint, Version of the opposite parties, and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the relief and costs?
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence on record it is evident that the complainant is having an SB account with the first opposite party vide account No. 30202431809.The complainant had subscribed to the BPCL credit card of the second opposite party with the number 4611 1991 4437 5063. On 28/05/2021 two disputed E- Commerce transactions were done by using the credit card of the complainant for an amount Rs.49,490/- and Rs.24,240/-.
Ext A1 is the front page of the passbook of the complainant with the first opposite party having account number 302024431809.
Exhibited A2 is the copy of the email dated 5/07/2021 issued by the second
opposite party to the complainant.
Ext A3 series is the email communications between the second opposite
party and the complainant on 3, June 21, 21June 21, 3July 21, 5July 21 (3 Nos).
The email communication dated 21 June 21from the second opposite party to the complainant admits that they have received a communication from the complainant on 28/05/2021 itself. It is further reported that the transactions for Rs 49,490/- 2 times and Rs 24,240/- has not yet been confirmed by the merchant. It is further informed that the transaction gets cancelled automatically, in case the same is not confirmed within 5 days from the date of debit.
In the email dated 5 July 21by the second opposite party it was reported that the transaction of Rs 49,490/- attempted at MAGIC BRICKS REALTY SER on 28/05/21 with the credit card ending with 5063 has been declined and the card has been blocked as the MAGIC BRICKS REALTY SER transaction seemed suspicious. This shows that the unauthorised user had attempted the credit card credentials for E-commerce transaction for an amount of Rs 49,490/- two times and the second transaction was blocked by the second opposite party as the transaction seemed suspicious.
It is also evident from the chief affidavit of the second opposite party that the SMS messages were delivered to the registered mobile number 9447806715 of the complainant at 3:51:16 PM on 28/05/2021 about spending of Rs 49,400/-from the card ending with 5063 at Magic Bricks Realty Ser on 28/05/21 and at 3:54:39 PM on 28/05/21 about spending of Rs 24,240/- from the card ending with 5063 at Magic Bricks Realty Ser on 28/05/21.This indicates that there was delay in delivering the SMS messages to the registered mobile number of the complainant.
The SMS delivered to the complainant is that “Rs.49,490/- and spent on your SBI Card ending with 5063 at MAGIC BRICKS REALTY SER on 28/05/21. If this trxn wasn’t done by you click://sbicard.com/DisputeRaise. Such a message was also seen sent on the transaction of Rs.24,240/-. The second opposite party admits vide Ext A3 email dated 21 June 21 that they had received communication from the complainant on 28/05/21 with regard to the disputed transactions. It is clear that the complainant had notified the second opposite party on 28/05/21 itself as per the instruction given in the SMS delivered to the registered mobile number of the complainant on 28/05/21.
The RBI Master Circular NoDBR. No. Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 regarding Customer Protection -Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions issued to Small Finance Banks and Payments Banks prescribes the Liability of customers as follows 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.
The customer is entitled for Zero Liability if the fraudulent transaction is reported within 3 working days from the date of receipt of the communication.
It is pertinent to note that the OTP for transactions for Rs 49,490/- was delivered at 1.15: 43: 53 and 1.15:50 45 hours. The second opposite party had blocked the second transaction for an amount of Rs 49,490/-for which the OTP was delivered at 1.15:50:45 hours. It is interesting to note that the OTP for the transaction for Rs 24,240/- by the MAGIC BRICKS REALTY SER was delivered at 1.15.54:09, four minutes after blocking the same merchant by the second opposite party. This shows that the second opposite party was not able to block the Transaction of Rs 24,240/- by the merchant MAGIC BRICKS REALTY SER, New Delhi after they found that the transactions of the merchant were suspicious.
This clearly shows that there is a third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system. The complainant had notified the second opposite party on 28/05/21, the same day of receiving the SMS messages about the unauthorised transactions. Thus the complainant is entitled for Zero Liability as per the RBI Circular. The act of the second opposite party in not providing the Zero Liability against the fraudulent transactions of Rs 49,490/- and Rs 24,240/- took place on 28/05/21 amounts to deficiency in their service. We allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
- The second opposite party is directed to refund Rs 73,730/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
(2) The second opposite party is directed to give Rs 10,000/- as compensation for the loss and sufferings with cost Rs 2,000/-.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the
copy of this order failing which the award amount of Rs.73,730/- will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 24th day of August, 2023.
Sri. K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt .Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of front page of pass book (A/c No.30202431809)
A2 – Copy of transaction dispute (117320942045)
A3- Copy of e-mail communication dtd.05/07/2021
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
