1.       The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.755/2014 dated 07.08.2017.

2.       The case of Respondent No.1/ Complainant is that he was having Savings Bank Account with the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1. He was not receiving email alerts as his email ID was wrongly recorded in the Bank, though he had requested the Bank to correct the same. The Complainant was surprised to know that an amount of Rs.14,00,900/- was withdrawn from his account by internet transfers between 08.01.2013 to 09.01.2013. The Complainant reported the matter to the Bank on 10.01.2013 and lodged a Complaint with the Cyber Crime, Thane and Vishnu Nagar Police Station on 13.01.2013. He was using the mobile sim of Reliance Telecommunications Ltd. His sim card suddenly got deactivated on 08.01.2013. In spite of his request, Opposite Party No.2 did not activate the sim card. The Complainant came to know that the sim card was activated by someone in Hyderabad due to negligence of Reliance Communication Ltd. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Axis Bank and Reliance Communications Ltd., the Complainant filed a Complaint with the Banking Ombudsman, who directed the Opposite Party- Axis Bank to pay Rs.1,40,000/- to the Complainant. The Banking Ombudsman also directed IndusInd Bank to pay Rs.2 lakhs. Not satisfied, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with the following prayer: -

“a.        Direct the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 to jointly and severally reimburse the fraudulent loss of Rs.14,00,900/- to me.

b. Direct the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 to pay interest at 15% from 8.1.2013, the date of the fraudulent withdrawals, to the date of payment to me.

c. Direct the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 to pay damages of Rs.3,00,000/- for the mental harassment and agony caused to me due to their continued negligence.

d. Award cost of Rs.1,00,000/- for legal expenses.

e. Pass such other orders in favour of the complainant as the Honourable Forum may consider fit and proper.”

3        The Complaint was contested by Opposite Party No.1/Axis Bank by filing written statement on the ground that the District Forum did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer Complaint as the relief sought by the Complainant exceeded Rs.20,00,000/-.

4.       On merits, it was stated that the Complainant responded to an anonymous mail and disclosed all confidential information such as login id, password, customer name, account number, email id, mobile number, land line number, office number, residence number etc., which resulted in fraudulent transactions. Complainant did admit that his sim card was deactivated on 8^th January, 2013 and the Complainant left his mobile handset with Swastic Telecom alongwith sim card for transferring the data from old mobile handset to a new mobile handset. The Branch Manager of the Bank advised the Complainant to immediately collect the sim card and ensure that the data in the old mobile was deleted. Swastik Telecom informed the Complainant that they were unable to give the old mobile handset as the nephew of the owner of Swastik Telecom had taken the old handset to Surat, Gujarat. Next day the Complainant again went to Swastik Telecom and he was informed that his sim card had been activated on 8^th January, 2013 in Hyderabad at 6.08 pm by an unknown person. Swastik Telecom also intimated the Complainant that Reliance Team would investigate the matter and intimate the outcome of the investigation to the Complainant by 11^th January, 2013. The casual attitude of the Complainant was responsible for fraudulent transactions. Opposite Party No.1 also stated that after deactivation of the sim card, the Complainant should have changed his internet banking login id and transaction password. There was, thus, no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.

5.       The District Forum, after hearing the learned Counsel for the Complainant and Respondent No.1, vide order dated 24.07.2014, dismissed the Complaint as not maintainable with liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Court.  

6.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 07.08.2017, set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the Appeal.

7.       Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.08.2017, the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Axis Bank filed the instant Revision Petition.

8.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.1/Complainant. None appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2/Reliance Communications Ltd. Respondent No.2 was, therefore, proceeded ex-parte.

9.       Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the present dispute cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because detailed enquiry was required regarding supply of confidential information of the internet banking. The matter also required involvement of IT Officials. Learned Counsel also submitted that the State Commission erred in holding that the Bank levied service charges for providing net banking services. In fact, the Bank did not levy any service charge for the same.

10.     On merits, Learned Counsel submitted that the State Commission erred in holding the Petitioner liable for the losses of the Complainant as the Bank failed to send sms/mail alerts. The alerts were, however, sent on his registered mobile number. The alerts were not received by the Complainant due to deactivation of his sim card, which is admitted by the Complainant. Learned Counsel submitted that the State Commission passed the impugned order relying on Circular DBR No.Leg B.C.78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated 06.07.2017 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The said Circular was issued on 06.07.2017 and the disputed transactions took place in 2013. The Circular dated 06.07.2017 was not applicable to the case of the Complainant. It was submitted that the Complainant responded to an anonymous mail for updating the internet banking details and disclosed all his confidential information such as login id, password, account number, email id etc., leading to the fraudulent transactions.  Learned Counsel submitted that the Complainant exchanged his old mobile handset with new one at Swastik Intercom without destroying the old sim card and left the sim card in the old mobile phone with Swastic Intercom. The fraudulent transactions took place due to the negligence of the Complainant himself. It was further submitted that the State Commission erred in dismissing the Appeal qua Respondent No.2 holding that it was a mere service provider. The fraudulent transactions took place due to deactivation of the sim card of the Complainant. Opposite Party No.2 was, therefore, solely responsible for the losses suffered by the Complainant.

11.     Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant submitted that in spite of written requests, the Petitioner did not correct the email id in their records. He also submitted that Respondent No.2 illegally activated the registered mobile number of the Complainant in Hyderabad. It was further submitted that RBI Circular dated 06.07.2017 is an extension of Circular No.DBOD.LEG.BC.86/09.07.007/2001-02 dated 08.04.2002 which specifically stated that the Banks should compensate the Consumers where the customer is not at fault. The submission of the Petitioner that RBI Circular dated 06.07.2017 cannot be given retrospective effect is wrong. The Petitioner Bank had not followed the guidelines of the RBI to prevent fraud of electronic transactions. Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of this Commission in HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Jesna Jose RP/3333/2013 dated 21.12.2020 and submitted that the impugned order was justified and the Revision Petition deserved to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

12.     Facts regarding fraudulent transaction are admitted by the Parties. The dispute is regarding negligence for the fraudulent transactions, resulting in loss to the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that the Bank failed to update the email id of the Complainant in the Bank record. On the other hand, the Opposite Party Bank alleged that the Complainant himself shared his net banking details to unknown person.

13.   As far as maintainability of the Consumer Complaint is concerned, the Petitioner stated that the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum in a summary jurisdiction as the matter involved complicated questions of fact and the District Forum rightly dismissed the Complaint as not maintainable with liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate Court. According to the Complainant, there were 22 fraudulent internet transfers to 12 different accounts. According to the Bank, the Complainant shared confidential information regarding his account to an unknown person. There are 12 beneficiaries by way of fraudulent internet transfer. It is to be enquired as to whom the Complainant supplied his confidential information. The Complainant also alleged that he was not receiving monthly statement on his email id since April, 2012 as the Bank had registered wrong email id. In this regard, he wrote an email to the customer care on 24.12.2012 and received response on 26.12.2012 from the customer care to the effect that the Branch officials would get in touch with the Complainant shortly. The Complainant also alleged that he was not receiving sms alerts from the Bank on his registered mobile number. The aforesaid issues need detailed investigation.

It is also relevant that the sim card of the Complainant got deactivated on 8^th January, 2013 and was activated again on same day in Hyderabad. The Complainant also left his mobile handset alongwith sim card with Swastik Telecom. The role of Swastik Telecom as well as deactivation of the sim card and activation on same day at Hyderabad by Reliance Telecommunication is also to be enquired. The judgment relied by Respondent No.1/Complainant in HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Jesna Jose, RP No.3333/2013, dated 21.2.2020, is distinguishable on facts as in that case the signature on the Complainant on the charge slip did not match with the signatures of the Complainant and the Bank issued the payment. Also issue involved did not relate to loss of card, amongst others.

14.  From the aforesaid discussion, we find that the matter needs detailed investigation, which is not possible for the Consumer Forum in a summary manner. The order of the District Forum dismissing the Complaint as not maintainable with liberty the Complaint to approach the appropriate Court is, thus, upheld and that of the State Commission is set aside. The Revision Petition stands disposed of on the above terms.