Date of Filing:05/10/2016 Date of Order:27/03/2019 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated:27th DAY OF MARCH 2019 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1369/2016 COMPLAINANT/S : | | SHRI.M.G. VISHWANATH, S/o M.L. Ganesh Holla, Aged about 56 years, Residing at No.72/1, GirijaNilaya, 5th Main, Chamarajapet, Raghavendra Colony, Bangalore 560 018. (Sri M.S.Chandrashekar Adv. for Complainant) | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTIES: | 1 | THE CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, No. 35, ARP Enclave, East Circle Road, Near Sajjanrao Circle, V.V Puram Branch, Bangalore 560 004. | | | 2 | SYNDICATE BANK (Head office) Represented by Executive Chairman/ Managing Director Door No.16/355 and 16/365 A, Manipal, Udupi District 576 104. | | 3 | THE MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, Visweswarapura, Bangalore. No.112, Dr.A.N.Krishna Rao Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore. (Sri M.Mohan Rao Adv. for O.Ps) |
| | |
| | |
ORDER
BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.
1. This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as O.Ps) alleging the deficiency in service and to direct OPs to pay a sum of Rs.49,948/- along with interest at 18% per annum till payment of the entire amount Rs.10,000/- towards damages and cost and other reliefs as this Forum deems fit under circumstances of this complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: complainant is a SB account holder with OP No.1 i..e Syndicate Bank, VV Puram Branch, Bangalore account bearing No, 04402010006436. He has been provided with a debit card bearing No.000033980440326573.
3. On 02.02.2016, at 5 P.M, he received a call to his mobile from mobile No.91868884942 stating that he is an employee of OP.No.1 and informed him that his ATM card has been deactivated in the month of January 2016 and requested him to reveal the last four digits of his ATM out of the 16 digits and hence the complainant revealed the last four digits of his ATM card. From 5 P.M on 02.02.2016 till 03.02.2016 till early morning, a sum of Rs.49,948/- has been debited from his account as per the account extract. He received message over his mobile in respect of the debiting his account he was shocked and surprised to know the same.
4. The said transactions are from Point of sale of purchase in New Delhi, Mumbai through PAYTM, Noida, SBI Buddy, Vodafone bill desk, ICICI prepaid card , TATA Docomo bill desk. On 03.02.2016 at 11 A.M, he lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional police station and FIR prepared. He got the helpline and blocked the said debit card. Even though he made a complaint to OP, they instructed him to file a complaint before police cyber crime authorities. He also made a complaint to banking ombudsman. Police have filed a C Report. He has not utilized any facilities like mobile banking or electronic transactions. The PIN number and ATM card number are highly confidential except the complainant or the banking employees, no other person can know the same and nobody can withdraw the amount. The unfaithful employees of the OP have done the mischief in drawing the amount or utilizing the card number. Hence, the Complaint.
5. Upon the service of notice, O.P No.1 and 2 appeared before the Forum and filed its version contending that the complaint is a false and frivolous one and to cover the mistake committed by him in revealing the PIN number and the card number he has filed this complaint and he himself is cause for deceitful transaction. Complainant is a advocate. He knows the banking transaction and also aware of caution given by the banking authorities, police authorities and newspaper regarding not to inform the details of the credit card, debit card numbers, pin number to any person even though they claim that they are from the bank.
6. None of its employees will seek information regarding the ATM card details, the PIN numbers and other details. There is no practice by the bank to call the account holders to get the said information. May be some hackers and culprits might have sought the information. For his own fault and negligence complainant cannot seek remedy from O.P. On receiving the complaint, they conducted an enquiry and noticed that e-commerce transaction has been done where card presence is not required for transaction. The VBV registration is done with PIN provided to customer which is only known to the customer. The CVV available on the card and VBV password second factor authentication which is not available on the card has been used for which O.P is responsible. Whenever the card has been used by the complainant, usually he will get a message over the phone. If at all he had not used the card on 02.02.2016 for withdrawing Rs.5,000/-, he should have immediately lodged the complaint and deactivated the card.
7. As per the record three, times on 02.02.2016 on 04 times on 03.2.2016 transaction has taken place and thereafter only complainant got the card deactivated. OPs are nothing to do with the investigation conducted by the Police on receipt of the complaint. OPs blocked the card immediately on receipt of the complaint there is no delay committed on their part. No delay in corresponding with the issue with the Complainant. Hence prayed the forum to dismiss the compliant as they are not liable to pay any of the claim made in the complaint.
8. In order to prove the case, both the parties 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 Parties?
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
9. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT NO.1 and 2: In the Negative.
. For the following.
REASONS
POINT No.1:-
10. It is not in dispute that the complainant is a SB account holder with OP No.1 i.e., Syndicate Bank, VV Puram branch Bangalore account bearing No, 04402010006436. He has been provided with a debit card bearing No.000033980440326573. On 02.02.2016 at 5 P.M he received a call to his mobile from mobile No.91868884942 stating that he is an employee of OP.NO.1 and informed him that his ATM card has been deactivated in the month of January 2016 and requested him to reveal the last four digits of his ATM out of the 16 digits and hence the complainant revealed the last four digits of his ATM card. From 5 p.m on 02.02.2016 till 03.02.2016 till early morning a sum of Rs.49,948/- has been debited from his account as per the account extract.
11. On the other hand, the notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India headed as: Customer Protection - Limiting liability of customer in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transaction _ July 2017.
“Limited liability of a Customer.
- Zero liability of the 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 communications 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 a 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 (Rs.) |
BSBD Accounts | 5,000 |
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 up to Rs.25 lakhs Credit cards with limit up to Rs.5 lakh | 10,000 |
All other current/cash credit/ overdraft accounts Credit cards with limit above Rs.5 lakh | 25,000 |
Further, if the delay in reporting is beyond seven working days, the customer liability shall be determined as per the bank’s Board approved policy. Banks shall provide the details of their policy in regard to customer’s liability formulated in pursuance of these directions at the time of opening the accounts. Banks shall also display their approved policy in public domain for wider dissemination The existing customers must also be individually informed about the bank’s policy. 8. Overall liability of the customer in third party breaches, as detailed in paragraph 6 (ii) and paragraph 7(ii) above, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, is summarized in the Table 2: |
Table 2 |
Summary of customer’s liability |
Time taken to report the fraudulent transaction from the date of receiving the communication | Customer’s liability |
Within 3 working days | Zero liability |
Within 4 to 7 working days | The transaction value or the amount mentioned in Table 1, whichever is lower |
Beyond 7 working days | As per bank’s Board approved policy. |
| | | |
The number of working days mentioned in Table 2 shall be counted as per the working schedule of the home branch of the customer excluding the date of receiving the communication.
Reversal Timeline for zero liability/Limited liability of customer.
9. On being notified by the customer, the bank shall credit (shadow reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorized electronic transaction to the customer’s account within 10 working days from the date of such notification by the customer (without waiting for settlement of insurance claim, if any). Banks may also at their discretion decide to waive off any customer liability in case of unauthorized electronic banking transactions even in cases of customer negligence. The credit shall be value date to be as of the date of the unauthorized transaction.
10. Further, banks shall ensure that:
i. a complaint is resolved and liability of the customer, if any, established within such time, as may be specified in the bank’s Board approved policy, but not exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint, and the customer is compensated as per provisions of paragraphs 6 to 9 above.
ii. where it is unable to resolve the complaint or determine the customer liability, if any, within 90 days , the compensation as prescribed in paragraphs 6 to 9 is paid to the customer; and
iii. In case of debit card/bank account, the customer does not suffer loss of interest, and in case of credit card, the customer does not bear any additional burden of interest.”
12. As per the contention of the Complainant, he revealed the card number to the person who called him over the phone informing him that he is the employee of the bank and that his (Complainant) debit card has been blocked in the month of January and he requested the number of the card and other details to activate the same, for which, he revealed the details. When such being the case, as per Clause 7 of the said notification, in case the loss is due to negligence of a customer such as where he has shared payment credentials the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the bank. Occurring after the reporting of the unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the bank.
13. In this case, on 02.02.2016 at 5 P.M the Complainant revealed the details of the card number to the person who called him over the phone. From that time onwards, till next date, a transaction for Rs.49,948/- has been done. Afterwards he reported the same to OP who blocked the card. After reporting the incident of unauthorized banking transactions using the card details, no transaction has been taken place. In view of Clause 7 of the notification as narrated above, it is due to the negligence of the complainant by sharing the payment credentials the fraudulent transaction has taken place for which bank cannot be held responsible and the entire loss has to be borne by the complainant.
14. Further deficiency in service or careless attitude and negligent attitude on the part of OP is not pleaded and proved. In view of this, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in the Negative and complainant is not entitle for any of the reliefs claimed and pass the following order:
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
- 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 failing which the same will be destroyed as per the C.P. Act and Rules thereon.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 27th MARCH 2019)
-
ANNEXURES
1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | Sri M.G. Vishwanath - Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Doc.No.1: Copy of the Pass book.
Doc.No.2: Copy of the ATM/Debit card.
Doc.No.3: Copy of complaint.
Doc.No.4: Copy of F.I.R.
Doc.No.5: Copy of letter dated 06.02.2016.
Doc.No.6: Copy of reply dated 16.03.2016.
Doc.No.7: Copy of the complaint to the Ombudsman dated 14.03.2016.
Doc.No.8: Copy of Acknowledgment 31.03.2016.
Doc.No.9: Copy of Complaint dated 21.03.2016.
Doc.No.10: Copy of the C Report.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: Sri P.Ganesh Mallya, Chief Manager of OP
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
Doc.No.1: Copy of the letter dated 16.03.2016 issued by the OP to complainant.
Doc.No.2: Copy of the letter dated 15.04.2016 issued by the OP to complainant.
Doc.No.3: Copy of letter dated 19.05.2016 issued by the OP to complainant.
Doc.No.4:Auto Acknowledgment dated 27.05.2016 .
MEMBER PRESIDENT
A*
