The Branch Manager, State Bank of India V/S Md. Anwar Hossain - Consumer Court Case

Tripura

West Tripura

CC/318/2022

Md. Anwar Hossain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.D.Saha, Miss.P.Roy

26 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO: CC- 318 of 2022

Md. Anwar Hossain

S/O- Abul Hossain,

South Ramnagar, Near PEC Brick field,

P.S. West Agartala,

Agartala, Tripura West- 799001. .....….......Complainant.

-VERSUS-

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Agartala Branch,

Melarmath, Agartala,

West Tripura- 799001. ...............Opposite Party.

__________PRESENT__________

SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant : Sri Debal Saha,

Smt. Paramita Roy,

Learned Advocates.

For the Opposite Party : Sri Amritlal Saha,

Sri Kajal Nandi,

Sri Sunil Bhaumik,

Learned Advocates.

ORDER DELIVERED ON: 26.05.2023.

F I N A L O R D E R

1. This case is filed U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Md. Anwar Hossain of South Ramnagar, Agartala West Tripura (in short “Complainant”) against the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Agartala Branch, Melarmath (in short “O.P.”) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

1.2 The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant have a Bank Account vide no. 30693892917 with the State Bank of India, Agartala Branch.

1.3 On 01.01.2022 Rs.10/-, Rs.4900/-, Rs.1500/- and Rs.6410/- were deducted from his savings Account unauthorizedly.

1.4 Next day i.e., on 02.01.2022 Rs.1000/-, Rs.4000/- Rs.12,499/- and Rs.700/- were again deducted unauthorizedly.

1.5 On 03.01.2022 complainant lodged G.D. Entry No. 26 with West Agartala P.S. alleging such unauthorized deductions.

1.6 On 03.01.2022 complainant informed the O.P. Bank by a letter. But received no reply. Thereafter on request of the complainant the O.P. Bank blocked the Bank Account.

1.7 Hence, finding no other alternative complainant filed this case before this Commission claiming Rs.94,609/- with 9% interest.

2. O.P. contested the case by filing their written version denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition.

2.1 It is contended by the O.P. that the customers has a duty to observed the precautionary measures in maintaining his bank account. It is the duty of the customer-consumer to inform the bank and police station as soon as he notices any unauthorized transaction in his bank account.

2.2 The complainant received SMS for such transaction but did not inform the bank immediately. The Bank did not receive any police investigation report in this matter.

2.3 The O.P. has no deficiency in service as the complainant did not inform the bank in time. As such after police investigation the complainant shall have the right to take legal action against the person if any who is liable for such unauthorized transaction, if any.

2.4 Hence, the O.P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Complainant submitted evidence on affidavit. Also submitted copy of pass book showing entry of such transaction, copy of G.D. Entry.

3.1 O.P. also submitted evidence of one Sri Emmanuel Owyx Tigga, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Agartala Branch.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, evidence following points are taken for discussion and decision:-

(I) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?

(II) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and relief as sought for?

5. O.P. Bank has submitted written argument in the line of W.O. that the complainant did not inform the bank on time after deductions on 01.01.2022 or 02.01.2022. Hence, bank can't be held liable.

5.1 For better appreciation, we consider the RBI Guideline dated 6th July, 2017. Point 3 and 4 of the guideline is advisory to the Bank for strengthening of the systems and procedures of the bank. Point 5 is also advisory to bank to alert and educate the customer about the procedure for providing better service to the customer. Point 6 and 7 inclusive of table 1 and reproduced below:-

“Strengthening of systems and procedures

3. Broadly, the electronic banking transactions can be divided into two categories:

(i) Remote/online payment transactions (transactions that do not require physical payment instruments to be presented at the point of transactions e.g. internet banking, mobile banking, card not present(CNP) transactions), Pre-paid payment instruments(PPI) and

(ii) Face-to-face/proximity payment transactions (transactions which require the physical payment instrument such as a card or mobile phone to be present at the point of transaction e.g. ATM, POS, etc.)

4. The systems and procedures in banks must be designed to make customers feel safe about carrying out electronic banking transactions. To achieve this, banks must put in place:

(i) appropriate systems and procedures to unsure safety and security of electronic banking transactions carried out by customers;

(ii) robust and dynamic fraud detection and prevention mechanism;

(iii) mechanism to assess the risks(for example, gaps in the bank's existing systems) resulting from unauthorized transactions and measure the liabilities arising out of such events;

(iv) appropriate measures to mitigate the risks and protect themselves against the liabilities arising therefrom; and

(v) a system of continually and repeatedly advising customers on how to protect themselves from electronic banking and payments related fraud.

Reporting of unauthorized transaction by customers to banks

5. Banks must ask their customers to mandatorily register for SMS alerts and wherever available register for e-mail alerts, for electronic banking transactions. The SMS alerts shall mandatorily be sent to the customers, while email alerts may be sent, wherever registered. The customers must be advised to notify their bank of any unauthorized electronic banking transaction at the earliest after the occurrence of such transaction, and informed that the longer the time taken to notify the bank, the higher will be the risk of loss to the bank/ customer. To a facilitate this, banks must provide customers with 24x7 access through multiple channels(at a minimum, via website, phone banking, SMS, e-mail, IVR, a dedicated toll-free helpline, reporting to home branch, etc.) for reporting unauthorized transactions that have taken place and/ or loss or theft of payment instrument such as card, etc. Banks shall also enable customers to instantly respond by “Reply” to the SMS and e-mail alerts and the customers should not be required to search for a web page or an e-mail address to notify the objection, if any. Further, a direct link for lodging the complaints, with specific option to report unauthorized 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 communications systems used by bank to sent 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. The banks may not offer facility of electronic transactions, other than ATM cash withdrawals, to customers who do not provide mobile numbers to the bank. On receipt of report of an unauthorized transaction from the customer, banks must take immediate steps to prevent further unauthorized transactions in the account.

Limited liability of a customer

(a) Zero liability of a customer

6. A customer's entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorized 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 unauthorized 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 customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the bank.

(ii) In cases where the responsibility for the unauthorized 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.

Table 1

Maximum liability of a customer under paragraph 7(ii)

Type of Account Maximum liability

BSBD Accounts 5000

All other SB accounts

Pre-paid Payment Instruments and Gift Cards

Current/Cash Credit/ Overdraft Accounts of MSMEs

Current Accounts/Cash Credit/Overdraft Accounts of Individuals with annual average balance (during 365 days preceding the incidence of fraud)/limit upto Rs.25 lakh

Credit card with limit upto Rs.5 lakh 10000

All other Current/Cash Credit/Overdraft Accounts

Credit Card with limit above Rs.5 lakh 25000

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

In the case in hand admittedly as per the complaint there were 4 unauthorized transactions on 01.01.2022 and again 4 unauthorized transactions on 02.01.2022. It is not the case of the complainant that he did not receive any SMS alert for those 8 unauthorized transactions but the complainant did not inform the Bank. Rather on 03.01.2022 the complainant lodged G.D. Entry No.26 with West Agartala P.S. and on that day informed the Bank. Immediately the O.P. Bank blocked his account and thereafter no transaction was held in the account of the complainant. Therefore, under the heading limited liability of customer in the RBI guideline as quoted above no loss occurred after reporting of any unauthorized transactions to the Bank. Hence, presumably the complainant customer was negligent either sharing payment with credentials etc. As such the O.P. can not be held responsible for any sort of deficiency in service.

Both the points are decided.

In the result the case stands disposed of as dismissed. Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to all the parties.

Announced.

SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.

Tripura

West Tripura

CC/318/2022

Md. Anwar Hossain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.D.Saha, Miss.P.Roy

26 May 2023

ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319