Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/617/2021

Bhupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Neeru Bansal

03 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/617/2021
Date of Institution	:	09/09/2021
Date of Decision	:	03/06/2024

 

Bhupinder Singh aged about 58 years s/o Sardar Harbans Singh r/o House Number 3349, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh (U.T)

(Presently resided at house number 236, Shivalik Vihar, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Punjab National Bank, Zonal or Circle Office at 1^st Floor, PNB House, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank at Raikot Road, Near Raikot Adda (Bus Stand) Jagraon, District Ludhiana through its Senior Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Harinder Kumar, Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Bhupinder Singh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that the complainant is having his saving bank/pension account bearing No.0220000100414798 (hereinafter referred to as “subject bank account”) with the OPs for the purpose to avail pension from his earlier service department since 19.1.2001. For his personal requirement, complainant applied for pension loan from his subject account and accordingly on 21.7.2021, OP-2 disbursed an amount of ₹3.00 lacs in the bank account of the complainant and copy of the passbook is Annexure C-1.  On 26.7.2021, the complainant tried to withdraw ₹500/- through his ATM card, but, the cash was not disbursed from the ATM machine, though the amount was debited from his account. In order to lodge complaint, complainant called the customercare No. which was displayed at the premises of the bank i.e.18001802223 (toll free number) and the said call was attended by the customercare executive, who asked the complainant to share his account and ATM card No. Accordingly, the complainant shared the said information by thinking that he is bank employee of the OPs.  After sharing the above information, the customercare executive asked the complainant to call on another mobile No.i.e. +91-8370898564 and the person attending the said call again asked the complainant to share the above mentioned information which was shared by the complainant in good faith.  Immediately thereafter, the complainant received messages indicating that total amount of ₹2,98,000/- has been debited from his account vide various transactions, which have also been reflected in the copy of passbook (Annexure C-1).  In this manner, the employee of the OPs had played fraud with the complainant. Immediately, the complainant lodged complaint (Annexure C-2) with the concerned bank branch.  On finding inaction on the part of OPs, complainant lodged complaint (Annexure C-3) with the OPs office at SAS Nagar, Mohali on 29.7.2021.  In addition to that, complainant has also filed one complaint (Annexure C-4) with the Cyber Cell, Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Sector 17, Chandigarh due to inaction of the OPs.  Not only this, on 31.7.2021, complainant had again moved a complaint (Annexure C-5) with the head office of the OPs.  As the OPs have deliberately played fraud with the complainant, knowing fully well about his account balance, which was credited on 21.7.2021 with pension loan and an amount of ₹2,98,000/- was illegally debited from the account of the complainant, the aforesaid acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts, jurisdiction and cause of action.  It is further alleged that, in fact, all the transactions had taken place due to the sharing of the login password and OTP, which the complainant had received on his registered mobile No. and there is no negligence on the part of the OPs and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  Not only this, as the complainant admitted that he shared the information sought by the person who was talking with the complainant through mobile No.8370898564 and only after that all the transactions had taken place and on each transaction, complainant had been sharing the OTP received by him on his registered mobile No., the consumer complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.  It is further alleged that the complainant has concocted a false story that he was asked by the customercare executive to contact the aforementioned mobile No.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is having subject account with the OPs/bank  and on 26.7.2021, firstly an amount of ₹500/- through ATM was debited from the account of the complainant and thereafter amounts of ₹2,00,000/-, ₹25,000/- ₹19,000/-, ₹25,000/-, ₹25,000/- and ₹4,000/- were debited from his account, through different transactions, as is also evident from the copy of statement (Annexure C-1), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if it is on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs that total amount of ₹2,98,000/- is debited from the account of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the aforesaid transactions had taken place only when the complainant himself had shared the payment credentials i.e. account/ATM card No. etc. with the caller and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. As per the case of the complainant, when he tried to withdraw ₹500/- using the ATM card and the said transaction was unsuccessful, but, despite of that, the amount was debited from his account and thereafter he contacted the customercare executive, who asked the complainant to share the account/ ATM card No. and to contact the person at mobile No.8370898564 and when he contacted the said person, he also asked the complainant to share the information qua his account/ATM card No. and as soon as the complainant shared the same, aforesaid amount of ₹2,98,000/- was debited from his account and the said transactions had taken place solely due to the fraud played upon him by the officials of the OPs.
   3. On the other hand, the defence of the OPs is that, in fact, the said transactions had not taken place simply by disclosing the account/ATM number by the complainant, but, also when the complainant shared the OTP, received on his registered mobile number, with the said caller, after each transaction who was not the employee of the OPs, there is no liability of the OPs due to the unauthorised transaction even as per the RBI guidelines.
   4. The complainant has himself relied upon RBI guidelines (Annexure C-6) and relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

 “(b) Limited Liability of a Customer

7. A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorised transactions in the following cases:

1. 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 unauthorised transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorised transaction shall be borne by the bank.
2. In cases where the responsibility for the unauthorised 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.”
   5. Perusal of the report (Ex.OP-1) further indicates that even in the investigation got conducted by the OPs, it was found that the complainant himself has shared the OTP and other credentials with the caller of mobile No.8370898564.
   6. From the perusal of record, it is further clear that the case of complainant squarely falls under clause (b)7(i) of the RBI guidelines (Annexure C-6) and the OP bank cannot be held liable for the said unauthorised transaction, rather the complainant/ customer will bear the entire loss since all the transactions had occurred/taken place before reporting of the unauthorised transaction by the complainant to the OPs.  Since it is an admitted case of the complainant himself that he had reported the OPs about the aforesaid unauthorised transaction only after the amount was already debited from his account and that too after sharing the ATM/account credentials, it is safe to hold that the complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves dismissal.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/06/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member