BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 25^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

ORDER

SMT. SUMA ANILKUMAR, MEMBER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, complainant seeking direction towards OP for the following reliefs:-

1. Direct the OP to rectify the issue and deposit back the amount of Rs.1,35,000/- with 18% interest to the savings bank account of the complaint from the date of deduction till the date of deposit.
2. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and pay sum of Rs.15,000/- towards legal expenses.
3. Grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

The complainant is maintaining a savings bank account with OP wherein account No.xxxxxxx4366 and is regularly maintained sufficient balance. The complainant is also in possession of debit card bearing No. xxxx xxxx 6633 issued by OP and only he was authorized to use the same after he receives the OTP to the registered mobile number whenever he has to do any of the internet/online transactions. It is the responsibility of the OP to make sure that any online/internet transactions go through only when the OTP is sent to the registered mobile number and the same has entered correctly on the transaction page.

3. On 17.03.2021 between 13:36 and 14:01 there have been 5 online transactions taken without knowledge of the complainant and due to which the complainant has suffered loss of amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. The details of the afore said transactions are as under:-

a) Rs.30,000/- WDL TFR debit amount 10235340077648239 of Mr. S Term of FD 1858D AT 13283 GANDHINAGAR.

b) Rs.10,000/- WDL TFR Debit amount 10235340077663715 of Mr. S Term of FD 1858D AT 13283 GANDHINAGAR

c) Rs.50,000/- WDL TFR INB PayU paments Pr 4599565162092 INTERNET BANKING

d) Rs.25,000/- UPI/Gateway No.10763423556/509950262092

e) Rs.20,000/- internet banking SBI/ATM ID SBIw003968004 SBI/YONO/Br03968

4. On 17.03.2021 at about 13:34, the complainant received a call from mobile No.9339237784 stating that the call is from the bank and asked him to provide OTP which was sent to his registered mobile number and by saying that someone is trying to withdraw huge amount from his account and to revert the account OTP is necessary. On believing the call to be from the bank, the complainant provided the OTP which he received from the 1^st two transactions. On providing the OTP, amount was debited from his account. Though the complainant has not assured OTP for the remaining 3 transactions, the account was debited from the account soon after the 1^st two transactions, without his knowledge. The complainant immediately brought this to the notice of OP on multiple occassions, requested to rectify the issue. The complainant also visited the OP bank and pointed out deficiency of service provided by them, that the OP did not give heed to the request of the complainant.

5. The complainant has given written complaint regarding the same to rectify the issue to the branch manager on 20.03.2021. On 17.03.2021 the complainant has also brought this online fraud to notice of CEN Police Station and also give police complaint in writing to the police inspector of CENPS, West division, Basveshwarnagar, Bangalore. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered on 23.03.2021 under crime No.0105/2021. Further with no other option left the complainant issued legal notice to OP on 15.11.2021. In dispute of service of notice, the OP failed to rectify the issue and deposit back the amount deducted within the notice period of 30 days. There is Unfair Trade Practice, deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence this complaint filed by the complainant.

6. On issue of notice , OP filed its version.

7. In the version of the OP, OP admits to the fact that the complainant holds savings account from the OP and also debit card attached to the said account, OP submits that all the averment of the complainant are rejected and disapproved and that the OP only need to ensure the security of online transactions is baseless, as it is well-known fact that the online banking transactions is joint responsibility of bank and customer. The same is endorsed by RBI as well as OP (Nationalized bank working under RBI guidelines). The OP further submits that as first step to online fraud is to block the debit card and amounts to ensure that no further siphoning of money happens with the victim. Instead of visiting bank, the complainant is alleging deficiency of service on OP. It is well clear in the light of law as well as RBI policy that online fraud refund happens only after the investigation done by investigating agencies. Hence the averments made by the complainant is keen attempt to be little and stand of law and vindicate the RBI policies on such frauds. There is no neglect from the OP bank as the OTP was provided in accordance with that the banking protocols. Rather, it was the complainant who shared the OTP with the 3^rd party giving access of his bank in account to another person. There are no such transactions that happened after the matter was reported to the OP, hence the OP cannot be alleged with deficiency in service.

8. It is well appreciated stand of law, that banks are held responsible for loss of money in case whether there is contributory negligence by the bank that resulted in loss of money by the bank. In case where loss of money is due to the negligence of the customer, bank cannot be held liable for the same. In this case the complainant already stated that the OTP was shared with another person by him. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence along with 6 documents in his contention and filed written argument. The OP has filed written argument along with Memo copy of RBI circular.

10. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

11.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Partly affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

12. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

13. In the copy of RBI circular submitted by the OP, which clearly shows that under the RBI guidelines Ref: DBR.No.Leg.B.C.78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated 06.07.2017, the rule of zero liability and limited liability of customer is clearly defined. As per the said policy clause 7(i) it is clearly mentioned that “In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he has shared the paymet credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transactions to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the bank”. Hence the cause of action as per the said policy, the complainant is not liable to the refund by the OP for the transactions in which the OTP was given by the complaint.

14. By observing the transaction details submitted by the complainant, i.e:-

a) Rs.30,000/- WDL TFR Debit amount 10235340077648239 of Ms. S Term of FD 1858D AT 13283 GANDHINAGAR,

b) Rs.10,000/- WDL TFR Debit amount 10235340077663915 of Ms. S Term of FD 1858D AT 13283 GANDHINAGAR,

c) Rs.50,000/- WDL TFR INB Pay U Payments Pr 4599565162092 AT 99922 INTERNET BANKING.

d) Rs.25,000/- UPI/Gateway No.107613423556/5099502162092

e) Rs.20,000/- Internet Banking SBI/ATM ID SBIw003968004 SBI/YONO/Br 03968

The first 2 mode of transactions are similar, in these 2 transactions the complainant submits that he has shared the OTP. Hence burden of loss in these 2 transactions lies on the complainant. The other 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th transactions are all showing different mode of transactions.

15.   In the RBI rules, DBR No. Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 submitted by the OP:-

Burden of Proof

12. The burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorized electronic banking transactions shall lie on the bank.

As per the (P-12) mentioned above the burden of proving the liability of customer in the above 3 transactions mentioned by the complainant lies on the bank i.e. OP. Therefore the OP had to investigate the transactions, to see that if liability falls on the customer or the transaction is a fraud by third party on receiving the complaint  of transactions by the complainant on 20.03.2021. This shows the deficiency of service on the part of OP.

16. The complainant has given the complaint regarding the same in writing to the branch manager on 20.03.2021 i.e. on 3^rd day from the date of transactions. In the RBI DBR No. Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18

As the table says within 3 working days, the liability of the customer lies zero. Hence the liability of the complainant is ‘zero liability’.

17. All the above reasons clearly shows that the OP has deficiency on their part. Therefore the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.85,000/- which is total of 3 transactions to the bank account of the complainant in the OP bank. The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation of Rs.5,000/-. Hence we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.

18. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to refund Rs.85,000/- to the bank account of complainant in OP bank.
3. OP is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. The OP is directed to pay the total Award amount within 60 days from the date of order failing which the OP is directed to pay 8% p.a. interest on the Award amount till realization.
5. Furnish the copies to both the parties, without cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 25^th day of OCTOBER, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL