Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/486/2022

Sidh Industries - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Gurminder Singh Phull

01 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/486/2022
Date of Institution	:	04/05/2022
Date of Decision	:	01/02/2024

 

Sidh Industries, Plot No.182/23, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Mrs. Harbans Kaur.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. State Bank of India, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, MW Market, Industrial Area, Chandigarh 160002 through its Branch Manager.
2. Reserve Bank of India, through its Regional Director, Central Vista, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017.
3. Infiniti Retail Limited, through its Director, Unit No.701 & 702, Wing A, 7^th Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400069, India.

… Opposite Parties

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

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gurminder Singh Phull, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP-1 ex-parte
	:	OP-2 ex-parte
	:	None for OP-3 (defence struck off vide order dated 18.4.2023)

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sidh Industries through its proprietor, Mrs. Harbans Kaur 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 complainant is having account No.10008638178 (hereinafter referred to as “subject account”) with OP-1/bank. On 31.12.2021, complainant received following message on mobile:-

“Dear Customer, Your SBI account has been blocked.  Please update your KYC in click here link – https://cutt.ly/2UUYAWU”

Believing the message to be bonafide and genuine, complainant clicked the link on mobile and on opening the link, the server asked for details like name and date of birth and the moment complainant furnished those details, the mobile phone got hacked and in a span of less than five minutes four illegal transactions took place vide which complainant was duped of total amount of ₹4,34,700/-. Copy of bank statement is Annexure C-1. Immediately, complainant called OP-1/bank and informed about the illegal transactions and also reported the matter to the Cyber Cell about cybercrime at Sector 17, Chandigarh vide complaint (Annexure C-2). On 1.1.2022, complainant also made a written complaint to the OP/bank and highlighted about the illegal transactions. Upon registering complaint with the OP, following message was received :-

“Dear SBI Customer, Case – 79495474 is created for the complaint registered by you and will be resolved at the earliest.”

By relying upon the assurances given by the OP/bank the complainant tried to get over the trauma faced and move on hoping that sincere efforts would be made to retrieve the illegal transactions. Though the complainant received refund of ₹20,000/- on 3.1.2022 and another amount of ₹20,000/- on 25.1.2022, but, the remaining amount of two transactions of ₹3,69,700/- and ₹25,000/- were not refunded by the OP-1/bank. Consequently, complainant was compelled to approach the RBI Ombudsman through complaint (Annexure C-4), but, the same was rejected.  As per information provided by the police during investigation, it has come to light that substantial amount of the illegal transactions i.e. ₹3,69,700/- was made to Infinity Retail – Croma Electronics Store/OP-3 which was never added as beneficiary by the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant is a victim of cyber fraud and OP-1, instead of protecting its customer, acted as an accomplice to the cyber fraud. In this manner, the aforesaid act of the 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. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Commission, OP-1 put in appearance. However, subsequently, neither anybody appeared on behalf of OP-1 nor reply and evidence were filed on its behalf, therefore, vide order dated 24.11.2022, OP-1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. OP-2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, alleging that the complainant has no cause of action against the answering OP and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the instant consumer complaint.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Commission, OP-3 put in appearance, but, as it failed to file reply within the stipulated period, therefore, its defence was struck off vide order dated 18.4.2023.
5. The complainant chose not to file the rejoinder. 

2. In order to prove its case, complainant tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents. However, as OP-2 failed to file evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunity, therefore, vide order dated 2.2.2023 of this Commission, opportunity to file the same was closed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. As per the case of the complainant, on receiving a message on mobile that the subject account has been blocked and the complainant has been asked to update KYC by clicking the link and the moment the said link was opened, KYC details like name and date of birth were furnished and at that very moment, mobile phone of the complainant was hacked as a result of which ₹4,34,700/- was debited from the account through four illegal transactions in quick succession regarding which intimation was also given to the cyber cell, Chandigarh as well as to the OP-1/bank. Perusal of the copy of statement of account of the complainant clearly indicates that on 31.12.2021, four different transactions i.e. ₹25,000/- ₹20,000/- ₹20000/- and ₹3,69,700/- were made. The case of the complainant is that out of the aforesaid four transactions, refund by way of reversal of two transactions of ₹20,000/- and ₹20,000/- has already been credited to the subject account whereas the remaining two transactions of ₹3,69,700/- and ₹25,000/- have not been refunded to the complainant despite of the complaint lodged by the complainant with the bank and the cyber cell.
   2. It is further the case of the complainant that, in fact, during investigation it was found that an amount of ₹3,69,700/- was transferred in the account of Inifiniti Retail – Croma Electronics Store i.e. OP-3 regarding which even OP-1 has not made any effort to retrieve the said amount from the account of OP-3 and refund the same to the complainant and besides that an amount of ₹25,000/-, which was debited at the first instance, has also not been refunded to the complainant and in this manner the complainant is entitled to the total amount of ₹3,94,700/-.
   3. The learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the RBI circular dated 6.7.2017 which provides Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

"Limited Liability of a Customer

(a) Zero Liability of a Customer

6. A customer's entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorised transaction occurs in the following events:

i. Contributory fraud/negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).

ii. Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised transaction."

4. The learned counsel for complainant has further relied upon clause 4.1 of the State Bank of India Compensation Policy (Banking Services)-2013 and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

"d) In case any amount has been debited to the account of a customer on account of fraudulent transaction(s) and the Bank is at fault the amount will be restored to the affected customer account without delay/demur, once the fraud is established, with due verification."

 

5. Since the complainant has proved on record that she had only given the KYC details, as asked on the phone, and had not disclosed anything about the account details or password or user ID, the amount was debited from the account of the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 who was otherwise duty bound to protect the amount deposited/lying with it from the fraudulent transaction which has not been done by OP-1 in the instant case.  To this extent the complainant has led sufficient evidence which is even clear from the copy of statement of account (Annexure C-1 & C-2), and the said evidence is un-rebutted by OP-1.
6. Moreover, when nothing has come on record that the complainant ever shared the confidential/personal details i.e. account details, password, user ID or OTP etc. before the aforesaid transactions and further when it has come on record that the major portion of the said amount has already been transferred in the account of OP-3 and OP-1 is very much aware of the fact that the said amount has been transferred in the account of OP-3 and no steps were made by OP-1 to retrieve the said amount from the account of OP-3 and refund the same to the complainant and also that complainant has reported about the same to OP-1/bank within three working days of the said transactions and further when it stands proved on record that the said transactions had taken place due to the system of OP-1, it is safe to hold that complainant has successfully proved the deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and OP-1 is liable to refund the aforesaid amount alongwith interest and compensation etc.  However, when it has come on record that an amount of ₹3,69,700/- out of the total amount was transferred in the account of OP-3, OP-1 has right to get the same recovered from OP-3.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-1 directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹3,69,700/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 31.12.2021 onwards. However, OP-1 is directed to first pay the said amount to the complainant with right to recover the same from OP-3.
2. to refund ₹25,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 31.12.2021 onwards.
3. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
4. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OP-1 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) to (iii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iv) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OPs 2 & 3, the consumer complaint against them stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

01/02/2024 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member