State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs Parth Trehan on 20 August, 2024
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 543 of 2022
Date of institution : 24.06.2022
Reserved on : 24.07.2024
Date of decision : 20.08.2024
HDFC Bank Ltd., Mall Road, Amritsar-143001 through Chairman/M.D.
Director/Principal, through Ms.Chetna Malik, Branch Operations
Manager.
.....Appellant/Opposite party
Versus
Parth Trehan S/o Sh. Shammi Trehan R/o H.No.17-A, Park Hotel Lane,
Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar.
......Respondent/complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 16.03.2022 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Amritsar in CC/616/2019
Quorum:-
Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-
For the appellant : Ms. Monika Thatai, Advocate
For respondent : Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advocate
KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the impugned order dated 16.03.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short, now "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite party (in short 'OP'), under Section 12 & 13 of the FA No.543 of 2022 2 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the following relief has been granted:
"9. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to credit the amount of Rs.37,999/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization to the account of the complainant. As the complainant faced harassment as he has to wander here and there to redress his grievance and then to file the instant complaint as such to meet the ends of justice, complainant is also entitled to compensation. So the opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- to the complainant......"
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant is having a saving bank account bearing No.50100178706633 with the OP and was also having a debit card bearing No.4987-920-0491-0562 issued by it. On 24.03.2019, the complainant received messages on his registered Mobile No.9888485994, which reflected that a total sum of Rs.37,999/- was deducted from his saving bank account through five debit transactions. The complainant and his family members immediately informed the OP on its toll free number and the blocked the said debit card. The complainant also lodged a complaint with the police authorities at P.S. Bengaluru Cyber Crime having No.2085/19. Thereafter, the complainant made the protracted futile communications with the OP but it failed to redress the grievance of the complainant despite the guidelines issued by the RBI in this regard.. Alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission and sought refund of the FA No.543 of 2022 3 amount of Rs.37,999/- along with interest @12% p.a. and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and also to pay adequate litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written version, wherein it raised certain preliminary objections, which are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. On merits, the OP stated that on receipt of information regarding the alleged debit transactions in the account of the complainant, it blocked the debit card forthwith. The OP further stated that to initiate a UPI fund transfer, customer needs to verify a four digit UPI Pin, which is linked to the account. The UPI PIN is set on the basis of last six digits of the debit card and its expiry date. The complainant has himself shared the UPI PIN with fraudulent people and his family members, which is evident from the police complaint lodged by the complainant, wherein he stated that he was being cheated on by a guy representing that he was from yatra.com, who had said that he would refund the amount of his flight booking. There was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions before the District Commission and the District Commission after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, accepted the complaint of the complainant, vide impugned order as above. Aggrieved with the same this appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP.
FA No.543 of 2022 4
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them and record of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the District Commission has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the respondent/complainant with a deliberate and malafide intention produced a twisted picture by concealing the actual facts to get a favourable decision from it. The District Commission has ignored the letter dated 26.03.2019 addressed to police authority, Bengaluru, wherein the complainant has admitted that he was cheated on by a person. Moreover, from the email dated 25.03.2019, it can be adduced that the fraudster had sent a link on respondent's Mobile and when he opened that link, in 20 seconds he asked the respondent to write his UPI number in the calculator of his mobile phone. The moment the respondent entered his UPI number in his mobile phone, the amount was deducted. The learned counsel has further contended that the UPI Pin is created by the account holder himself and nobody can withdraw the money through UPI unless the person knows the UPI pin. The District Commission has also failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent was himself negligent and was responsible for the alleged loss caused to him and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the written reply and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that the impugned order passed by FA No.543 of 2022 5 the District Commission does not suffer from any infirmity and has laid down the correct position of law. The impugned order is well reasoned and is liable to be upheld. The learned counsel further argued that the complainant was being cheated by a person from yatra.com, who said that he would refund the amount of his flight booking and asked for his UPI Pin, but he has not shared the said pin and without exchanging the UPI PIN, amount was deducted from his account. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case.
10. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is having a saving bank account bearing No.50100178706633 with the appellant bank/OP. It is also not in dispute that on 24.03.2019, a total amount of Rs.37,999/- was deducted from the said saving bank account of the respondent/complainant, vide five debit transactions. The respondent/complainant alleged that the act of the OP qua not verifying the said debit transactions, which were not done by him, amounts to deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/OP. As the appellant/OP failed to redress the grievance of the respondent/complainant, he filed the consumer complaint before the District Commission, which was accepted against the appellant, vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. FA No.543 of 2022 6
11. The grievance of the appellant is that the District Commission has wrongly accepted the complaint against them, on the basis of mere conjectures and surmises, whereas there is no fault or negligence on the part of the appellant. The District Commission has allowed the complaint, while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission, in the case of 'HDFC Bank Limited Vs. Jesna Jose', in RP No.3333 of 2013, wherein reliance has also been placed on clause 6(a) of the Circular dated 06.07.2017, issued by the Reserve Bank of India regarding reversal of erroneous debits arising from fraudulent or other transactions and it has been held that the appellant is negligent in service.
12. Now, the only question arises for adjudication before us is that whether there is any fault/negligence on the part of the appellant for the online/UPI deductions of said amount from the saving bank account of complainant or not? To determine this controversy, we have perused the entire evidence and pleadings on record. The perusal of complaint dated 26.03.2019 lodged by the respondent/complainant with the police authority, Ex.C-4, is important and relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"I was being cheated on by a guy mentioned that he was from Yatra.com saying that he will refund the amount of my flight booking. He indirectly asked for my UPI PIN and also sent me a text saying that I have to forward this text from my phone No. to another phone No.9219666255 and he called me from phone No.6289494757 saying that he was from Yatra.com and his name was Saurav Kumar. After this money started debiting from account."
This complaint made by the respondent/complainant informing the police authorities that he was being cheated by a person, who had FA No.543 of 2022 7 represented himself that he was from Yatra.com, is enough evidence to establish the fact that there was no role of the appellant/bank and it has not been alleged by the complainant while addressing his concern to the police authority. It is also stated in the said complaint that the respondent/complainant was asked for UPI Pin and a text was sent to him asking him to forward the same from complainant's phone number to another phone number. It is only after the complainant clicked on the link and acted upon the instructions given by the said person, which he has mentioned as Saurav Kumar, that the money got deducted from the account of the complainant. Had the complainant been prudent and wise, he would have not clicked on the link without verifying the credentials of the person, who has misrepresented himself as being from Yatra.com. It is the complainant's own negligence that he trusted an unknown person and acted upon his advice. In all this, we are unable to establish any fault or deficiency on the part of the appellant/bank.
13. Further perusal of the email dated 25.03.2019, Ex.C-7, sent by the father of the complainant to the OP-Bank, shows that the complainant received a telephonic call from the fraudster, who sent a link on the mobile phone of the complainant. The complainant on the asking of the said fraudster, opened the said link and entered his UPI number in the calculator of his own phone and the moment he entered the UPI number, the amount was deducted from his account. The relevant part of the said email is also reproduced as under:-
"My son Parth Trehan, student in Bangalore became a victim of fraud yesterday. The matter was that I asked him to take refund of air-ticket from Yatra portal, the person who took my call was fraud FA No.543 of 2022 8 and I gave him my son's mobile number. When that person called my son he said that my son needs to open the link sent by them. In 20 seconds my son will have to write his UPI number in the calculator of his own mobile screen, the moment my son entered that in his own mobile screen, Rs.10,000/- were deducted from his account and he received that message. Parth, my son realized that he has been cheated so he kept on calling the number given in those deduction messages but no answer to them."
Even from the above, it is evident that by clicking on the link, which the stranger had sent on the complainant's mobile phone, the complainant had granted him access to his mobile phone. When the complainant inserted his UPI number on his calculator, the fraudster noted it down and used it to withdraw money from the complainant's account using UPI Pin. It is pertinent to mention here that nowadays, banks in India have been incessantly warning people against scamsters, urging customers to never share their banking details, ATM pin details, credit card numbers etc. Despite these warnings, if customers still fail to adhere to the basic precautionary norms and fall prey to fraudulent schemes or activities, they will not be able to hold the banks responsible for it. The pleading of the complainant is that he never disclosed the UPI pin to anybody, but he himself stated that he clicked the link sent on his phone by a person posing as an official of Yatra.com. Hence, we are of the considered view that the respondent/complainant was duped because of his own negligence and there is no fault or negligence on the part of the appellants.
14. The District Commission has allowed the complaint, while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission, in the case of 'HDFC Bank Limited Vs. Jesna Jose', in RP No.3333 of 2013, wherein reliance has been placed on clause 6(a) of the Circular DBR.No.Leg.BC. 78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated 06.07.2017 issued by the FA No.543 of 2022 9 Reserve Bank of India regarding limiting liability of Customers in Unauthorized Electric Banking Transactions. The relevant part of the said circular is reproduced as under:-
"Limited Liability of 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.
(b) Limited Liability of a Customer
7. A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorised transactions in the following cases:
(i) 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.
(ii) 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 RBI,DBR,CO - 4 - continuation sheet 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." Now, we would like to discuss whether in the present case there is liability of the Customer or Bank? The respondent/complainant was duped because of his own negligence, as discussed above, therefore only Clause 7(i) of the above said circular is applicable that " in cases FA No.543 of 2022 10 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". The District Commission has overlooked the above said clause 7(i) of the Circular and wrongly allowed the complaint against the appellant. Hence, as per clause 7(i) the liability is of the respondent/complainant and he shall bear the entire loss as he shared the payment credentials and there is negligence on his own part.
15. Sequel to our above discussion, we allow the appeal of the appellant and the impugned order of the District Commission is hereby set aside.
16. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.27,845/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant/OP by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(H.P.S. MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER August 20, 2024 (Dv)