State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
B.M, State Bank Of India vs Chandram Banjare & Anr. on 21 June, 2023
Appeal Nos.: Branch Manager, State Bank of India Date of Pronouncement:
FA/22/141 Vs. 21/06/2023
Chandram Banjare & Anr.
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 26/05/2022
Date of Final Hearing: 21/06/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 21/06/2023
APPEAL No.- FA/22/141
IN THE MATTER OF :
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Branch- Manikpur, Korba,
TAH. & DIST. KORBA (C.G.)
Through: Shri N.K. Bisen, Advocate,
... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Chandram Banjare,
S/o. Late Shri Sahasram Banjare,
R/o. M-17, SECL Manikpur Colony, Korba,
TAH. & DIST. KORBA (C.G.)
Through: Shri Shantanu Shende, Advocate
... Respondent No.1
2. CEO, Vijay Shekhar Sharma,
Paytm Headquarter, B-121, Sector-05,
NOIDA (U.P.) - 201 301.
Through: Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Advocate
... Respondent No.2
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI GOPAL CHANDRA SHIL, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER PRESENT: -
Shri N.K. Bisen, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Shantanu Shende, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent No.2.
O R A L O R DE R PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short) is directed against order dated 14/02/2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Korba (C.G.) (hereinafter referred as "District Commission"
for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/2020/07, filed by the respondent No.1 herein alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties due to unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.99,990/- from his savings bank account Allowed Page 1 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Branch Manager, State Bank of India Date of Pronouncement:
FA/22/141 Vs. 21/06/2023
Chandram Banjare & Anr.
by way of ten transactions and seeking direction for refund of the said amount with compensation for mental agony Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.5,000/-, which was allowed by the District Commission with direction for refund of Rs.99,990/- (Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety) along with interest at the rate payable in savings bank account, for payment of compensation for mental agony Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand). Both the opposite parties were directed to pay half share (i.e. 50-50 share) of the above amount within 45 days. Feeling aggrieved the opposite party No.1/ Bank has filed this appeal.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 / complainant has a savings bank account No.30012542288 with the appellant / opposite party No.1 Bank, in which he used to do online banking and UPI transactions but from April 2019 the UPI transaction facility in the said account was stopped. On 27.09.2019 from the above account of the respondent No.1/ complainant, some unknown person withdrew Rs.99,990/- by 10 withdrawals of equal amount of Rs.9,999/-. The respondent No.1 / complainant immediately intimated the opposite party No.1 Bank and then visited the Bank and enquired about the said withdrawals. He was told that in all 11 transactions of equal amount of Rs.9,999/- through UPI was done out of which amount of one transaction was reversed. They assured that the amount will be reversed in the bank account in few days. The respondent No.1/ complainant alleged that OTP did not come in the registered mobile number and without any OTP all the 11 transactions were done due to negligence of the opposite party No.1 Bank, whereas the UPI transaction facility was stopped in the Allowed Page 2 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Branch Manager, State Bank of India Date of Pronouncement:
FA/22/141 Vs. 21/06/2023
Chandram Banjare & Anr.
account since April 2019. On this ground alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed seeking directions as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
3. The appellant/ opposite party No.1, in the written version except the admitted facts, denying the adverse allegations against it, averred that the Bank used to give all the information and care about use of the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) to the customers who avails the said facility, which were given to the respondent No.1/ complainant also. In this case the respondent No.1/ complainant himself negligently shared information regarding the UPI transaction like password, OTP number etc. to some unknown person who withdrew the amount by UPI through Paytm. It is further averred that from the bank statement of the respondent No.1/ complainant it appears that the transactions were made through Paytm, which is generally possible when it is made between Paytm account to Paytm account or after scanning the Barcode, hence the statement that without using OTP all the transactions were done is false. In fact some unknown person has misused the UPI and confidential information after receiving it due to negligence of the respondent No.1/ complainant and has done all the withdrawals for which the appellant / opposite party No.1 Bank is not liable. Thus, they have not committed any deficiency in service, hence the complaint be dismissed with cost of Rs.2,00,000/-.
4. The respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2, in the written version denying all allegations leveled against it has averred that the complaint is baseless and frivolous which deserves to be dismissed. It is further averred that there are no specific allegations against the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 in the complaint. The general terms and conditions of availing services of the Paytm, available in the website www.paytmbank.com, were reproduced and it was specifically averred Allowed Page 3 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Branch Manager, State Bank of India Date of Pronouncement:
FA/22/141 Vs. 21/06/2023
Chandram Banjare & Anr.
that the customer was liable for all losses for any misuse that have happened with his / her consent or knowledge. It was further averred that the complainant had shared all the necessary credentials with the fraudsters due to which the fraud took place and now the complainant is taking advantage of its own negligence. On the above grounds, it was prayed that the respondent No.2 / opposite party No.2 has not committed any deficiency in service, the complaint is false, frivolous and misconceived hence the same be dismissed.
5. Learned District Commission considering the rival contentions of all parties, documents and taking into consideration the Guideline dated 06.07.2017 issued by the Reserve Bank of India has allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order with the directions as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
6. We have heard arguments of all parties, perused the record of the District Commission as well as the impugned order. We have also gone through the written arguments filed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party No.1 Bank has argued that in the information given to the Superintendant of Police by the respondent No.1/ complainant he admitted that he shared the link to an unknown person. He has further argued that for mobile to mobile transfer of amount through Paytm, always an OTP is generated and sent to the registered mobile of the account holder and only when the same OTP is entered, the transfer of amount becomes possible and this process is also admitted by the respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 Paytm. In the transactions in question the respondent No.1/complainant himself Allowed Page 4 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Branch Manager, State Bank of India Date of Pronouncement:
FA/22/141 Vs. 21/06/2023
Chandram Banjare & Anr.
was negligent in using UPI. It is also argued that for doing UPI transfer, the Bank never send OTP and the transaction can be done by using M- PIN, which is created by the account holder himself. In this case in all the transactions in question, M-PIN was used through the registered mobile number of the account holder, in which the bank cannot be held liable. He prayed that learned District Commission has failed to appreciate the facts and documents submitted before it and passed the impugned order, which is needs to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ complainant has supported the impugned order and argued that it is just and proper which needs not to be interfered with.
9. Learned counsel appeared for the opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 submitted that they have complied with their share of the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission. They sent D/D No.578521 dated 23.03.2022 amount Rs.60,000/- to the respondent No.1/ complainant. The respondent No.1/ complainant himself as well as his learned counsel both also confirms the above fact of payment of Rs.60,000/-.
10. The guideline issued by Reserve Bank of India dated 06th July 2017 vide RBI/2017-18/15, No.DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 and District Commission has also based its finding upon the said guideline on 'Zero Liability of a Customer' given at Sr. No.6. It is pertinent to mention here the relevant portion of the guideline which are as under : -
"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:Allowed Page 5 of 8
Appeal Nos.: Branch Manager, State Bank of India Date of Pronouncement:
FA/22/141 Vs. 21/06/2023
Chandram Banjare & Anr.
(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 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."
The information given to the Superintendent of Police Korba vide letter dated 10.10.2019, has been brought on record, which is marked as Ex. OP (1) - 1. In this letter the respondent No.1/ complainant has stated in detail the entire episode of 27.09.2019 i.e. the date of withdrawal in question. He stated that cyber criminal contacted him and told that he could refund his amount of Rs.23,000/- which was fraudulently transferred to SBI and Allahabad Bank account through mobikwik. He sent an encrypted message and thereafter he sent a link to be opened. The respondent No.1/ complainant stated that he opened the link and unknowingly entered the last four digit of his SBI savings bank account number and UPI ID of Google Pay in the Google form opened through that link and submitted the information. Just when he submitted the form the unauthorized UPI transactions started in his savings bank account. Allowed Page 6 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Branch Manager, State Bank of India Date of Pronouncement:
FA/22/141 Vs. 21/06/2023
Chandram Banjare & Anr.
11. Looking to the above information given to the Superintendent of Police it is abundantly clear that the respondent No.1 / complainant himself clicked a link, filled the form with all confidential credentials of his bank account and the UPI transaction and thereafter through UPI the amount was transferred by some unknown person. This fact clearly goes to show that the respondent No.1 /complainant has negligently shared the payment credentials by way of clicking the unauthorized link sent by some miscreant and facilitated him to do the transfer of money through UPI or in his own way whatever he wanted to do with the savings bank account of the respondent No.1/ complainant, to which the miscreant was having access at that moment.
12. Learned District Commission has overlooked this admission by way of story reported to the Superintendent of Police, by the respondent No.1/ complainant himself and has also relied on the irrelevant guideline given at Sr. No.6 under '(a) Zero Liability of a Customer' which is not applicable in this case as the instant case is not a case of unauthorized transaction. In fact the guidelines given at Sr. No.7 (i) under „(b) Limited Liability of Customer' of the RBI guideline dated 6th July 2017 is applicable in the facts of the present case, which talks about the negligence of the customer in sharing payment credentials and according to which the customer will have to bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the Bank and for the loss occurred after reporting of the unauthorized transaction, the Bank is made liable. In this case the fact is nothing of that sort that any transfer of amount was made after intimation to the Bank. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. On the contrary, it was the respondent No.1 / complainant Allowed Page 7 of 8 Appeal Nos.: Branch Manager, State Bank of India Date of Pronouncement:
FA/22/141 Vs. 21/06/2023
Chandram Banjare & Anr.
who negligently shared payment credentials by way of clicking the message sent by some unknown miscreant. Learned District Commission has erred in holding the Bank deficient in service and has also made a wrong interpretation of the Guideline of the RBI, which needs to be set aside.
13. However, so far as the direction in the impugned order to the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 is concerned, they have not filed any appeal or cross-objection and impugned the order of the District Commission. In fact the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 has complied with their part of the order of the learned District Commission and have paid Rs.60,000/- (Sixty Thousand) in compliance thereof. The respondent No.1/ complainant who is present in person with his learned counsel, also confirmed the payment of above amount. Therefore, the impugned order so far as the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 is concerned, it has attained its finality being not challenged. In this situation it is made clear that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order so far as the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 is concerned the same is untouched by this order.
14. Therefore, with the foregoing discussion, we allow this appeal, setting aside the impugned order with regard to the appellant / opposite party No.1 Bank holding them deficient in service and the direction given to them for payment of half share of the awarded amount. The complaint of the respondent / complainant against the appellant / opposite party No.1 Bank stands dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost. (Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Gopal Chandra Shil) (Pramod Kumar Varma) President Member Member /06/2023 /06/2023 /06/2023 Pronounced On: 21st June 2023 Allowed Page 8 of 8