Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/149/2022

SURAJ PARKASH SON OF SH RAMESH CHANDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SENIOR MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

J S THAKUR AND JYOTI MEHTA ADV.

22 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	149 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	09.11.2022
Date of Decision	:	22.11.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Suraj Prakash son of Sh. Ramesh Chander r/o House No.180/2, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]      The Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sector 17,     Chandigarh.

2]      The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.

 …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-   

 

Sh. J. S. Thakur, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the complainant, namely, Suraj Prakash (appellant herein), against order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby his consumer complaint bearing No.45 of 2021 has been dismissed by the Ld. District Commission by holding that when it was an admitted case of the complainant that the amount was debited from his account only when he shared the details of his account, ATM card, pin and OTP, it was clear on record that the aforesaid unauthorized transfer was not occasioned by an act of malfeasance on the part of functionaries of the bank; rather the same had occasioned by an act of malfeasance on the part of the complainant/account holder himself.

2.             Briefly, stated the facts before the Ld. District Commission were that the appellant opened a saving bank account with respondent No.1 and also obtained facility of ATM card.  On 11.9.2019, some person told the appellant telephonically that he was calling from the bank and that ATM card of the appellant is going to expire and asked him to give ATM card number, which the appellant disclosed in good faith to the said person. Immediately thereafter, the said person withdrew an amount of ₹95,496/- in 9 different transactions on the said date itself. The appellant approached respondent No.1 with a written request and his ATM card was blocked. The appellant also made written complaint to the SSP office. When no action was taken, then on 12.9.2019, the appellant made a complaint to Reserve Bank of India to take action against the said person. The appellant served a legal notice to respondent No.1 but to no avail and thereafter filed complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

3.             On the other hand, it was the case of the respondents before the Ld. District Commission that the appellant himself had given details of his password, pin, OTP etc. to the fraudulent caller, despite the fact that there is wide circulation by way of public notice by Banks and RBI that consumers may remember that Banks never ask for such details. It was stated that the amount was deducted from the appellant’s account due to his own negligence and when intimation was received, the ATM card was immediately blocked by the respondents and no transaction had taken place thereafter. It was further stated that the factum of sharing account details, ATM card No., OTP etc. was also admitted by the appellant in the application written by him to the respondents.  It was further stated that the respondents had never assured the appellant that the amount would be returned by them.

4.             We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant at the preliminary stage and have also carefully gone through the impugned order and the record.

5.             While assailing the order of Ld. District Commission, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that no doubt the appellant disclosed the details of the ATM Card and the PIN to the person, yet when intimated to the respondents as regards the fraud committed upon the appellant, it was their first and foremost duty to stop the transactions midway as it took almost 24 hours to reach the payment to the person sitting on the other side. It was further submitted that when one entry of Rs.9,999/- was credited back to the account of the appellant, then the remaining eight entries too could have come back if the respondents had taken appropriate and timely action. It was further submitted that the appellant had never applied for the facility of online payment but the respondents provided it without the knowledge of the appellant. It was lastly submitted that the respondents did not comply with the order dated 22.10.2019 of Banking Ombudsman Chandigarh for refund of the amount.

6.             After considering the rival contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and going through the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is an admitted fact on record by way of applications/complaints (C-2 and C-4) filed by the complainant before different authorities immediately after deduction of the said amount from his account and as also conceded by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments before us that the appellant himself shared all the details of his ATM card, pin as well as One Time Password (OTP) received by him on his mobile with the caller. Therefore, for his own negligence, carelessness and deficiency in not maintaining the privacy of the details of his ATM Card, the appellant could not blame or accuse the respondents at the later stage by alleging that the respondents could stop the transactions midway as it took almost 24 hours to reach the payment to the person sitting on the other side. Many a times, banks, credit card companies and insurance companies are warning their customers about not to share their personal information or OTP with unknown persons as these institutions never ask any of their customers to share such information on phone calls. One should understand the basics here, the Bank is right at its place when it is refusing to pay. Since the money is already gone from the account to the merchant as legitimate credentials were given or shared by the Cardholder and if the Bank agrees to refund, it would amount to burdening the Bank with losses without there being any fault of it.

7.             Not only above, RBI Circular dated 6.7.2017, as also discussed by the Ld. District Commission in its order, also envisages that “7. A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorised transactions 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 report of the unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the bank.” Further, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case “Chairman, Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Leader Valves Ltd.”, II (2020) CPJ 92 (NC), held in Para 11 as under :-

“11.   The first fundamental question that arises is whether the Bank is responsible for an unauthorized transfer occasioned by an act of malfeasance on the part of functionaries of the Bank or by an act of malfeasance by any other person (except the Complainant/account-holder). The answer, straightaway, is in the affirmative. If an account is maintained by the Bank, the Bank itself is responsible for its safety and security. Any systemic failure, whether by malfeasance on the part of its functionaries or by any other person (except the consumer/account-holder), is its responsibility, and not of the consumer.”

In the present case, taking into consideration that facts and circumstances and in view of law settled by Hon’ble National Commission in above-cited judgment, this Commission also does not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The appellant himself acted negligently in disclosing his ATM Card details and OTP, for which, the respondents cannot be held liable.

8.             Further the argument that the respondents did not comply with the order of Banking Ombudsman whereby they were directed to refund the amount to the appellant/complainant has rightly been dealt with by the Ld. District Commission by holding that Annexure C-4 was of no help to the appellant as the said annexure only contained minutes of meeting and did not discuss about the last circular dated 6.7.2017 issued by the RBI which clearly instructed the financial institutions/banks that in cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer such as where he has shared the payment credentials, customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the bank. Thus, this contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant stands rejected.

9.             In our considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is well based, legal and valid in the eyes of law. As the appellant has miserably failed to make out any case of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the respondents and when he himself was negligent, careless and deficient in not maintaining the privacy of the details of his ATM Card & OTP, this Commission finds no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order of Ld. District Commission, which is liable to be upheld and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed at the preliminary stage being devoid of any merit with no orders as to costs.

11.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

12.           File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

22.11.2022.

(PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 

Ad