DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of September 2023
Filed on: 16/11/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO 440/2019
COMPLAINANT
Ambika Gopi, W/o. Gopi, Mayamandiram House, Kizhakkepram, N. Paravur P.O., Ernakulam 683513.
(Rep. by Adv. P.K. Unnikrishnan, N. Paravur)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Cherriyapilly Branch, N. Paravoor, Ernakulam District.
(Rep. by Adv. K.C. Binesh, 2nd Floor, Saidu Muhammed Complex, C.P. Ummer Road, Pulleppady, Kochi 35)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the complainant had opened a savings bank account with the Opposite Party bank, bearing the account number 33318380817. As of 14th January 2019, the account had a balance of Rs. 45,113.36. However, on the 5th of February 2019, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was inexplicably withdrawn from the complainant's account via ATM Cash transaction number 6776 at Tinwary Chowk, Deoghar. Additionally, on the 7th of February 2019, Rs. 20,000/- was withdrawn through ATM Cash transaction number 1469 at Sarwan More Deoghar, and Rs. 5,000/- was withdrawn through ATM Cash transaction number 2237 at Rai & Company on the 15th of February 2019.
The complainant, unfortunately, lacked the knowledge to check messages and account information on her mobile phone. It was not until May 16, 2019, when the complainant's daughter-in-law, who had returned home for delivery and casually checked the messages on the complainant's mobile phone, that the disappearance of Rs. 45,000/- was discovered, as detailed above. Importantly, the complainant had not shared her ATM card with anyone else, nor had she disclosed her OTP number, password, or any related information. None of the complainant's family members or relatives had visited Deoghar, a place unfamiliar to them. The complainant deposited her money with the Opposite Party's bank in good faith, believing that her funds would be secure, but her money was lost due to the Opposite Party's negligence and inefficiency.
The complainant maintains a customer-service provider relationship with the Opposite Party, and the loss of Rs. 45,000 occurred due to the service provider's irresponsibility and negligence.
Upon discovering the loss of funds, the complainant promptly informed the Opposite Party and filed a complaint with the police. However, the Opposite Party took no action to return the lost funds to the account. Consequently, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 45,000/- and, as a consumer, received no resolution from the Opposite Party. Although the Opposite Party had assured the police that the lost funds would be returned to the complainant, the police did not register a criminal case based on the complainant's complaint. Due to the actions of the Opposite Party, the complainant suffered financial losses and endured mental distress, necessitating visits to places such as the police station.
Nevertheless, the complainant has faced technical obstacles raised by SBI, hindering her quest for justice. She seeks the recovery of Rs. 45,000/- from the Opposite Party, along with 18% interest from the 15th of February 2019, and she also claims compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental anguish endured. In total, the complainant seeks Rs. 95,000/-, in addition to Rs. 45,000/- with 18% interest from the 15th of February 2019. Furthermore, she requests the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 2,000/- as the cost of the legal proceedings.
2). Notice
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice and filed their version.
3). THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The complaint is not valid, both factually and legally, and should be dismissed with costs. The complainant holds a savings account with the SBI Cheriyappilly branch. The complainant reported unauthorized debits totaling Rs. 45,000/- from her account on 16.05.2019, which occurred through ATM withdrawals on specific dates in February 2019. However, the complaint was lodged more than two months after the incident.
The bank's policy involves sending transaction alerts to account holders' registered mobile numbers via SMS, and these alerts were confirmed to have been successfully delivered to the complainant's registered mobile number. The complainant admitted to being unaware of banking practices and unable to check messages on her phone or verify account details independently. This admission suggests that the complainant's ATM card information was compromised.
The opposite party contends that they took proper precautions to secure the ATM card and PIN until it was received by the customer, and it is the customer's responsibility to protect the card and PIN once received. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the bank's part in issuing the ATM card and PIN.
Moreover, the opposite party argues that the complainant displayed severe negligence by sharing her debit card and PIN with relatives, which contradicts RBI guidelines and the bank's instructions to customers. The bank's compensation policy also stipulates that if a fraudulent transaction is reported more than seven working days after the incident, full liability rests with the customer.
The complainant's delay in reporting the incident allowed subsequent withdrawals to occur. Despite the complainant's claim of ignorance about banking transactions, there were multiple transactions in her account using her debit card, indicating that she may have compromised her card and information.
The Banking Ombudsman was approached by the complainant, but they did not intervene because the complaint was lodged after the bank's compensation policy's stipulated time frame.
The opposite party asserts that they have acted diligently and promptly in responding to the matter and that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. The opposite party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable, and the complainant is not entitled to the requested reliefs.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced a proof affidavit and 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-5. The complainant was examined as PW1.
EXHIBIT A1: A photocopy of the complainant's account details.
EXHIBIT A2: A photocopy of the complaint filed at the North Paravur Police Station on May 17, 2019, regarding the loss of money.
EXHIBIT A3: A copy of the receipt issued by the police station acknowledging the above-mentioned complaint.
EXHIBIT A4: A photocopy of the application submitted in relation to the ATM transaction dispute.
EXHIBIT A5: A photocopy of the information provided by the bank in accordance with the Banking Ombudsman's order.
The opposite party had produced 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits B-1 to B-5.
EXHIBIT B1: True copy of the statements of account of the complainant.
EXHIBIT B2: True Copy of SMS Confirmation Reports dated 05.02.2019,07.02.2019 and 15.02.2019.
EXHIBIT B3: Bank's Fraudulent Transactions Compensation Policy.
EXHIBIT B4: SBI Debit Card User Guide.
EXHIBIT B5: True copy of the Banking Ombudsman's Order dated 30.08.2019.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced a copy of the complainant's account details (EXHIBIT A-1.) Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant maintained a customer-service provider relationship with the Opposite Party, and the loss of Rs. 45,000 resulted from the service provider's irresponsibility and negligence.
Regrettably, the complainant lacked the knowledge to check her mobile phone messages and account information. It wasn't until May 16, 2019, when the complainant's daughter-in-law, who had returned home for delivery, discovered the disappearance of Rs. 45,000/- while casually checking messages on the complainant's mobile phone. Importantly, the complainant had not shared her ATM card or disclosed her OTP number, password, or related information to anyone. None of the complainant's family members or relatives had visited Deoghar, an unfamiliar place to them. The complainant entrusted her money to the Opposite Party's bank in good faith, believing her funds were secure, but she lost her money due to the negligence and inefficiency of the Opposite Party.
Upon discovering the loss, the complainant promptly informed the Opposite Party and filed a complaint with the police. However, the Opposite Party took no action to return the lost funds to the account. Consequently, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 45,000/- and received no resolution as a consumer. Although the Opposite Party assured the police that the lost funds would be returned, no criminal case was registered based on the complainant's complaint. Due to the Opposite Party's actions, the complainant suffered financial losses and endured mental distress, necessitating visits to places such as the police station.
Despite these challenges, the complainant faced technical obstacles imposed by SBI, impeding her pursuit of justice. She seeks the recovery of Rs. 45,000/- from the Opposite Party, along with 18% interest from February 15, 2019. Additionally, she claims compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental anguish endured. In total, the complainant seeks Rs. 95,000/-, including Rs. 45,000/- with 18% interest from February 15, 2019. Furthermore, she requests the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 2,000/- as the cost of the legal proceedings.
In response to the complainant's case, the opposite party's counsel submitted the following points:
- The complainant reported unauthorized debits totalling Rs.45,000 from her account with the opposite party bank, which she maintained with them. These transactions were alleged to be ATM withdrawals occurring on specific dates in February 2019. However, the complaint was lodged more than two months later, on May 16, 2019, which constitutes a significant delay.
- The bank's policy entails sending transaction alerts to account holders' registered mobile numbers through SMS. The bank's SMS report team confirmed the successful delivery of these messages to the complainant's registered mobile number. However, the complainant admitted to lacking knowledge of banking practices and being unable to independently check her phone for messages or verify account details, relying on third-party assistance. This admission suggests that the complainant's ATM card credentials and information might have been compromised.
- The opposite party claimed to have taken all necessary precautions to safeguard the security and confidentiality of ATM cards and their PINs until they are received by customers. Once received by the customer, it becomes their responsibility to protect the card and its PIN from unauthorized use. They argued that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the bank's part in issuing the ATM card and PIN.
- It was asserted that there was negligence on the part of the complainant in using her debit card, as she shared her card and PIN with her daughter-in-law due to her lack of knowledge about banking practices. This action was in violation of RBI guidelines and the bank's instructions to customers, which explicitly prohibit sharing or disclosing ATM PINs to third parties. The bank's terms and conditions also stipulate that acting without reasonable care may result in the cardholder being liable for all losses incurred.
- As per the bank's compensation policy, if a fraudulent transaction is reported more than seven working days after the incident, full liability falls on the customer. In this case, the complainant reported her complaint on May 16, 2019, more than two months after the incident occurred, absolving the bank of liability. Had the complainant reported the unauthorized transactions promptly, further withdrawals could have been prevented.
- Despite receiving SMS alerts, the complainant failed to notify the bank even after receiving notifications on February 7, 2019. There was ample time for her to report the unauthorized transactions, and timely action by the bank could have prevented further losses.
- The opposite party argued that the complainant's claim of having no knowledge of banking transactions contradicted the numerous transactions conducted in her account using her debit card. This suggests that she had shared her card and related information with a third party, potentially leading to the unauthorized withdrawals. The statement of the complainant's account for the specific period supported these facts.
- During her examination, the complainant admitted her lack of knowledge regarding banking practices and her inability to check messages or verify account details independently. This further supported the possibility of her ATM card credentials being compromised. She also confirmed that all banking transactions were carried out on her behalf by her daughter-in-law.
- Although the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman, they did not intervene in the matter due to the complaint being filed more than two months after the incident, contravening the bank's compensation policy, which stipulates that fraudulent transactions should be reported within seven working days.
- The opposite party contended that they diligently addressed the matter and responded promptly. There was no evidence of negligence or deficiency in service on their part, and they argued that the complaint was not justifiable under any circumstances. Consequently, the complainant was not entitled to the relief sought, and they requested the dismissal of the complaint with costs awarded to the opposite party, emphasizing the absence of a valid cause of action against them.
Top of Form
The complainant alleges that the Opposite Party bank was deficient in providing service and exhibited negligence in handling her account, resulting in the unauthorized withdrawals. The Opposite Party, in their version, argues that they have taken necessary precautions and that the complainant's negligence in sharing her ATM card and PIN contributed to the loss. The complainant had produced a proof affidavit and five documents marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-5. The complainant herself was examined as PW1.
After careful examination, it is evident that there are disputes regarding the responsibility for the unauthorized withdrawals and the delay in reporting the incident. The complainant asserts that she did not share her card or related information, while the Opposite Party suggests otherwise. These disputes raise complex questions about liability and negligence.
However, it is important to note that the complainant's lack of knowledge about banking practices, her inability to independently verify account details, and her reliance on third-party assistance have played a significant role in this case. The complainant's delay in reporting the unauthorized transactions also allowed subsequent withdrawals to occur.
During the cross-examination, the complainant, who has completed only up to the 7th standard and lacks English proficiency, faced questions from the opposite party's counsel. When asked whether they had read, understood, and signed documents during the account-opening process, the complainant responded in the negative. Additionally, the opposite party's counsel suggested that had the loss of money from the bank been reported within 24 hours, the funds might not have been lost (EXHIBIT B2).
Furthermore, the complainant stated herself that she not have the knowledge to check the messages. The opposite party submitted the SBI Debit Card User Guide (EXHIBIT B4), which is presented entirely in English and Hindi. This guide outlines the immediate steps to take in the event of an ATM card being lost /Stolen. It would be unreasonable to expect an ordinary person, such as the complainant, with their educational background, to read, comprehend, and promptly act upon this guide. The passage also raises questions about the customer-friendliness of financial institutions and their failure to provide terms and conditions in the customer's native language or mother tongue. It suggests that ‘Alert Messages’ should be conveyed in the customer's language, particularly through mobile phones. Urgent action is called for from the Reserve Bank of India to direct banks and other financial institutions to address these issues promptly and ensure their implementation.
Based on the evidence and arguments presented, it is evident that the complainant's delay in reporting the unauthorized transactions and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the Opposite Party's negligence or deficiency in service make it challenging to establish liability on their part.
After a thorough examination of the facts and arguments presented by both parties, it is determined that the complaint is dismissed due to the lack of sufficient evidence to establish liability on the part of the Opposite Party.
Considering the growing concerns over reported cases of cheating, fraud, and misuse of debit/credit/net banking services, it is advisable for banks to consider offering the following services/facilities in regional languages as an option for interested consumers:
- Account opening forms
- Terms and Conditions as well as usage guidelines for debit/credit/net banking
- SMS alerts, with the provision of choosing the preferred language during the account opening process.
Top of Form
As part of this directive, the Registry of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Reserve Bank for further action.
In light of the above circumstances, the complainant had failed to prove his case on merit, and hence points Nos. (ii) to (iv) are found against the complainant.
As the result, the complaint is dismissed with no cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of September 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s evidence
EXHIBIT A1: A photocopy of the complainant's account details.
EXHIBIT A2: A photocopy of the complaint filed at the North Paravur Police Station on May 17, 2019, regarding the loss of money.
EXHIBIT A3: A copy of the receipt issued by the police station acknowledging the above-mentioned complaint.
EXHIBIT A4: A photocopy of the application submitted in relation to the ATM transaction dispute.
EXHIBIT A5: A photocopy of the information provided by the bank in accordance with the Banking Ombudsman's order.
Opposite parties evidence
EXHIBIT B1: True copy of the statements of account of the complainant.
EXHIBIT B2: True Copy of SMS Confirmation Reports dated 05.02.2019,07.02.2019 and 15.02.2019.
EXHIBIT B3: Bank's Fraudulent Transactions Compensation Policy.
EXHIBIT B4: SBI Debit Card User Guide.
EXHIBIT B5: True copy of the Banking Ombudsman's Order dated 30.08.2019.
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 440/2019
Order Date: 29/09/2023
