ORDER

SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M.  MEMBER

1.      This is the Complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party (herein referred to as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in not refunding Rs.90,000/- which was drawn fraudulently from his account by using Internet Banking and for refund of the same along with interest at 18% per annum and further for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.30,000/- towards shock and mental suffering caused by OP and Rs.10,000/- towards  litigation expenses and other reliefs and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that: the complainant is an account holder with OP having account No. 9311840480, at Koramangala Branch. To is shock on 12/01/2021 while checking with bank account he realized that a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.10,000/- on 9 times on a single day was withdrawn) and credited to Axis Bank, HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank. Without informing and giving OTP number and messages. He has not shared the confidential details like OTP, PNR, PIN number to any persons or he has not done any NEFT transactions, he gave a complaint to the OP and also to the Cyber Crime police on 16.01.2021. He also filed a dispute in the proper from in respect of the fraudulent transaction. Though it was an unauthorized fraudulent transaction, OP did not recredit the said amount even after several months of the complaint being filed. OP has not resolved the issue. Complainant visited many times to the OP branch and inspite of it, OP did not solve the problem and did not provide IP address of the beneficiary. He had to issue a legal notice on 19/02/2021 and same has been replied OP on 03/03/2021 OP has not refunded the money and refuted the said allegations. The money fraudulently withdrawn by unauthorized person which is against to the rules and guidelines laid down by RBI and the guidelines laid down RBI is very clear that if the customer immediately reports fraudulent transaction, then the bank has to make good the amount to the customer. Inspite of it, OP has not cooperated with the investigating authorities. The act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint.

3.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the commission and filed its version and contended that there is no act of negligence or fraud  committed on the part of OP in undertaking of any service to the complainant and the use of net banking facility of customers account is confidential in nature and is personal to the customer usage. If for any reason, personal details are misused at customer’s end then there is no deficiency that can be fastened to bank and the complaint is not maintainable in law and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

4.      OP has further contended that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and suppressed the relevant materials on transaction that are detailed as per his net banking user. In one day all nine transactions within the period of 16 to18 hours on 12/01/2021 has been done by the complainant. After investigation, it was noticed that  the above transactions using net banking in the name of one  Prashanth Kumar (Complainant) which is linked to his account number. These transactions were executed with valid net banking transaction and are not disputed or unauthorized allegations and the allegation to that extent are totally false and untenable. Only confirmed facility of SMS is made available for mobile banking. If application is made prior to such mobile banking, that is where transaction on mobile is possible. It is pertinent to mention that by disclosing net banking details of a customer link login code, password, PIN to any friend or close relatives, it could be misused. Onus of proving that the said transactions on net banking is misused without complainant’s knowledge lies on the complainant. Online transaction of any account would be subject to secured browsing mode on internet. The allegations made in the complaint are vexatious in nature. Denying all the allegations made in the complaint and prayed the commission to dismiss the above complaint.          

5.      In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is  entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6.      Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO 1 & 2: IN THE NEGATIVE

                        For the following.

REASONS

POINT NO 1:-

7.      It is not in dispute that the complainant is the account holder with OP with SB account No.9311840480, at Koramangala Branch. To his shock after checking his bank account, he found that 12/01/2021 there were unauthorized transactions and that sum of Rs.90,000/- has been deducted  unauthorizedly by link of different banks link like AXIS Bank, HDFC Bank,   ICICI Bank’s using card. After that he informed OP which gave evasive answer and also op received the complaint writing. Complainant also to lodged a complaint to cyber in police station on 16/01/2021 as per the EX-P5. Ex-P6 is the legal notice issued to OP. OP in its version contended that the complainant is an educated in internet banking, and the transaction of made by using customer ID, net banking password, and has passed on the said details which was only within his knowledge of the complainant and cannot be accessed to do the banking activities by other person.

8.      No internet banking activity could take place without compromising or customer sharing account details. Further the 3^rd party fund transfer transaction done in the account post inputting of customer ID and PIN and the same was duly authenticated with OTP which was sent on mobile. Further the beneficiary amount transfer another bank accounts. In this case also OTP has been generated and sent to the complainant’s registered mobile and post inputting of the correct OTP, the beneficiary has successfully added in to the account. Further as part of security control of the bank, a beneficiary is activated only post cooling period of 30 minutes of addition and for new beneficiary addition, all transactions are mandatorily to be authenticated with OTP.

9.      OP has taken the contention in the version that the complainant has done online transaction for which OTP is generated and transferred to his registered mobile. In this case the bank has filed the details of the OTP number generated, shared the same with the complainant’s registered mobile number.

10.    Complainant has not at all mentioned even in the complaint his mobile number registered and linked to his account number. Whereas only in the letter written to the RBI, complainant has mentioned his mobile number with email ID i.e Ex P4. The said number to which as per the document produced by OP provided the OTP number which strengthen its stand taken in the version. The transaction of NEFT from the account of the complainant is by the complainant. In view of this there is no defect in the banking system or internet and digital banking service. In view of this, complainant/ customer is fully liable for his acts and deeds in respect of using the internet banking. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed prove the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence we answer POINT NO 1 and 2 IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The Complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.  

   Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 16^th day of MARCH 2022)

MEMBER         MEMBER        PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the account statement issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank

Ex P2: Copy of the letter addressed to OP bank

Ex P3: Copy of  reply given by the bank dt.2.2.2021.

Ex P4: Copy of another letter written to  RBI

Ex P5:Copy of the FIR.

Ex P6: Acknowledgment for giving complaint to the police.

Ex P7: Copy of the legal notice to the bank.

Ex P8: Postal acknowledgement

Ex P9: Reply to complainant legal notice dt:02.03.2021 & 03.03.2021.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Niranjan K , Branch Manager of OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the RBI circular in respect of customer protection and liability in respect of customers in Unauthrorised Electronic Banking transactions.

Ex R2: Copy of the email

Ex R3: Copy of the Service information.

Ex R4: Copy of report in respect of the tyre.

MEMBER                 MEMBER        PRESIDENT

RAK*