State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas ... vs Abhisek Chowdhury on 25 February, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1238/2017 ( Date of Filing : 24 Nov 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/09/2017 in Case No. cc/178/2016 of District Kolkata-II(Central)) 1. The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Regional Head office, 119, White House, Park Street, P.S. - Park Street, Kolkata -700 016. 2. The Br. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Chandannagar Br., Urdibazar, Chandannagar, Dist. Hooghly, Pin -712 136. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Abhisek Chowdhury S/o Sri Tarun Chowdhury, Hatkhola, Mukterpara, Chandernagore, Hooghly, Pin -712 136, W.B. 2. The Officer-In-Charge, Chandernagar Police Station Chandernagaor, Hooghly, Hooghly, Pin -712 136, W.B. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Aparajita Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent: In-Person., Advocate Dated : 25 Feb 2019 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 18-09-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in CC/178/2016, whereof the complaint case has been allowed.
The instant complaint case was filed by one Sri Abhisek Chowdhury alleging unauthorized/illegal transfer of money from his bank account by an unknown person. Holding the OP Bank entirely responsible for their failure to safeguard his hard earned money, he filed the instant case. The OP Bank, on the other hand, claimed that the alleged transactions took place owing to Complainant's own lapses. Accordingly, they denied to accept any liability for the same.
Decision with reasons While Appellants were represented by their Ld. Advocate, the Respondent No. 1 himself pleaded his own case before me at the time of hearing.
It appears from the record that all the alleged illegal transactions took place through net banking system. In this regard, the procedure of online banking system, as explained by the Appellants, is pertinent to mention, which are as under:
"For making payment or doing any online transaction by net banking, the first and foremost requirement is Inter Banking Login ID and password, which only the customer will be knowing as he is the person who set the ID and password for internet banking. Even if any person by any mischief gets the detail of Internet Banking and password, fund can only be transferred when that person enters One Time Pin (OTP) which is generated by the online server and sent as SMS to the registered mobile number of the customer with the Bank. Without the OTP, system will not allow any transfer/transaction of funds".
It becomes absolutely clear from the above that the Appellants are fully appreciative of the weakness of the net banking system as a result of which, they themselves do not rule out the probability of hacking of the Login ID and password of a customer behind his back and in order to overcome such vulnerability of internet banking users, they introduced the system of generation of OTP which is sent to the registered mobile number of the account-holder.
In this case, the Respondent No. 1 denied receiving any OTP or SMS on his mobile number in respect of any of the disputed transactions.
If I am to trust the contention of the Appellants, in order to make net-banking transaction successful, it is imperative to put the system generated OTP. In such a scenario, they Appellants were well placed to provide tangible proof to show that system generated OTPs were sent to the mobile number of the Respondent No. 1. Not only that, since after each successful transaction, necessary confirmation to that effect is given to the customer through SMS as per RBI guideline, I could accord benefit of doubt to the Appellants provided they furnished any cogent proof in this regard.
Unfortunately, nothing of that sort is placed before me from the side of the Appellants in order to put at rest all ambiguities in the matter to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Theoretically, it may appear that the safety measures being put in place by banks in order to safeguard the interests of their customers are foolproof and miscreants can get away with their sinister design provided customers themselves are at fault. However, if we take a practical view into the matter, we would come across thousands of such instances where, thanks to the vulnerability/defect of Indian banking system, hapless customers are robbed of their hard-earned money every now and then. In such circumstances, without providing sufficient proof, banks cannot be allowed to pass the buck upon the customers.
Thus, taking due note of the fact that Appellants have miserably failed to furnish any material proof to show that OTP and SMS were sent to the mobile number of the Respondent No. 1 in respect of all the disputed transactions, I have no qualms concurring with the view of the Ld. District Forum.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- being payable by the Appellants to the Respondent No. 1. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER