Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/932/2022

KARAM CHAND THAKUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/932/2022
Date of Institution	:	17.11.2022
Date of Decision	:	4/12/2023

 

Karam Chand Thakur S/o Sh. Parshotam Ram  R/o House NO.870 B, Guru Nanak Colony, Gali No.1 A, Badala Road, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Punjab.

 

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

State Bank of India, Branch Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Sahil, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for OP.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  the complainant is an old customer of OP Bank where he is having his pension/saving account No.10445130520. On 11.2.2021,  the complainant received SMS from the State Bank of India on his mobile phone  that “Yono Cash Rs.20,000/- W/d@SBI ATM GFBV000066083 from the subject account vide reference NO.#957751 has been deducted/debited from his account. The complainant shocked to see that since the said App was not used by him and the amount was withdrawn from his account, the complainant immediately tried to contact the OP but his call was not responded and accordingly the complainant decided to visit the bank on the next date. Accordingly in the morning of 12.2.2021 the complainant reached the bank to enquire about the SMS and when he was standing in front of the Manager, a call  was received from mobile NO.+916207076492  on his phone  and the caller asked the complainant to share SMS OTP number received on his phone but the complainant did not disclose the same and thereafter the Manager checked the account of the complainant and told that an amount of Rs.20,000/- has actually been withdrawn at Mugma, Dhanbad in Jharkhand . Thereafter the complainant informed the Manager that since he is standing in front of him how the aforesaid amount can be withdrawn at Mugma, Dhanbad in Jharkhan. The Manager immediately  blocked the yono app  and provided a complaint form Annexure C-1 to the complainant which was given by the complainant to the bank after filling the same. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint with SHO  (Cyber), Kharar, Mohali and the copy of complaint and email received from the police station are annexed as Annexure C-2 and C-3. After waiting for some time, when no response was received from the police and bank the complainant again visited the OP bank and handed over the reminder Annexure C-4 dated 19.10.2021. The complainant sent another reminder Annexure C-5 through email dated 24.12.2021 to the OP but with no response. In this manner, the aforesaid amount has been withdrawn fraudulently from the account of the complainant and as the OP has failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability, concealment of facts. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP since the transaction has taken place due to negligence and carelessness of the complainant. However it is admitted that the complainant is having his account with the OP but denied that any call was received by the complainant in the presence of the Manager as alleged. It is further alleged that the application YONO SBI made by the bank recommended to the customers is a very robust app  in which before any cash is withdrawn through ATM certain mandatory conditions are to be fulfilled by the customer i.e. firstly to login to YONO cash app by giving his/her ID password details or MPIN to login to account and thereafter to apply for transaction in YONO cash app by specifying  the amount of  transaction  and for every transaction there is separate PIN generated per transaction.  The customer has to verify such transaction after giving the OTP to App and the customer after visiting the ATM only of SBI branch, then has to select YONO cash and provide the OTP to the application to the ATM  generated before and  add the same amount for which the transaction is made. In case the amount contradicts with the app and ATM then the transaction will be cancelled. In  the case in hand the complainant himself filled all the details  and the complainant had to give the OTP generated to the ATM and then the  transaction was to be completed and the complainant would have the cash with him meaning thereby the subject transaction could not have been completed without sharing of YONO credentials and YONO cash Transaction number by the complainant. Thus negligence is on the part of the complainant who shared the payment credentials with the third party and there is no negligence on the part of the OP.  As per RBI guidelines and directives where loss is due to negligence of customer such as he/she shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was 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 parties 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 that the complainant is having saving account in the branch of OP bank and on 11.2.2021 an amount of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant through SBI YONO cash and  thereafter the complainant reported the matter to the OP Manager on the next day i.e. on 12.2.2021 and the YONO App was blocked by the Manager  of the OP bank on the request of the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the transaction of Rs.20,000/- from the subject account of the complainant had taken place due to the negligence of the OP and the said act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as  prayed for as is the case of the complainant or if  the subject transaction had taken place due to use of YONO cash app by the complainant himself and by sharing the payment credentials by the complainant to third person and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OP.
   2. It is an admitted case of the parties that the subject transaction had taken place by use of YONO app @SBI ATM GFBV000066083 from the subject account  of the complainant vide reference NO.#957751 on 11.2.2021 and the complainant has come with the specific plea that he  has neither used the subject app on his mobile nor he shared the OTP to the third person. Whereas the OP has come with the defence that the complainant himself has completed the mandatory conditions like; to login to YONO cash app by giving his ID password details or MPIN to login to account and thereafter to apply for transaction in YONO cash app by specify the amount of transaction and then verify the transaction after giving OTP given to app and provide the OTP to the application to the ATM generated  either by himself or sharing the same with some third person and in this manner it is to be determined if the  transaction had taken place due to negligence and carelessness of the complainant as is the defence of the OP or due to negligence of the OP as alleged by the complainant.
   3. It is known fact that a person using SBI Yono app or the yono cash app has to go through the following process:-

• to login to YONO cash app by giving his/her ID password details or MPIN to login to account

 

• After login the customer has to apply for transaction in YONO cash app by specify  the amount of  transaction  and for every transaction.

 

 

•  Every transaction will have separate PIN generated. 

 

• The customer has to verify such transaction after giving the OTP to App and the customer after visiting the ATM only of SBI branch then has to select YONO cash and provide the OTP to the application to the ATM  generated before and  add the same amount for which the transaction is made.

 

 

• Only after giving  OTP generated to the ATM then the transaction will be completed  and the customer will have the cash with him.
  4. Thus one thing is clear on record that unless the OTP is provided to the application, transaction action will not be completed. In the case in hand as it is the case of the complainant that the aforesaid amount was withdrawn from his subject account through Yono cash app regarding which he received the SMS on his phone, makes it clear that the complainant himself used SBI Yono cash app  after completing all the mandatory conditions as discussed above  either by visiting the SBI ATM personally or he has shared the OTP/payment credentials to third person resulting the confirmation of the aforesaid transaction because the complainant being in possession of OTP/payment credentials presumed to have operated transaction and it is not possible to withdraw money by unknown person without knowledge of OTP/payment credential of Yono cash app.  Hence, due to the negligence and carelessness of the complainant who shared the payment credentials with the third person the aforesaid amount was withdrawn from his account and in that case the OP bank cannot be held liable for the said transaction.
  5. As per RBI guidelines and directives vide circular dated 6.7.2017 on “Limited Liability of customer in Unauthorized Electronic Bank Transanctions”- In case where the loss is due to the negligence by a customer such as where he/she shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear entire loss.  In the instant case it has  proved on record that the there is negligence on the  part of the complainant.
  6. Moreover, the complainant has made contradictory allegations in the  instant complaint as well as in the complaints made with the police  vide Annexure C-2 and another complaint made by him to the bank vide Annexure C-4. If the aforesaid complaints are read  concurrently, it comes out that the complainant tried to improve his case by introducing the fact that on the next day i.e. on 12.2.2021 he received a call on his mobile in the presence of Manager from some unknown  caller who asked him to share the OTP but he did not share the same and despite of that the transaction had taken place, forgetting the fact that the transaction had already taken place on 11.2.2021 and also that the said fact of receiving of call in the presence of Manager has not been disclosed by the complainant either in the complaint lodged with the police vide Annexure C-2  or in the complaint lodged with the bank vide Annexure C-4. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove his case.

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 off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

Announced 4/12/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member