Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6) It is contended that the complainant no.1 discontinued practice followed by him for two months to send US$ through overdraft account but two unused pre-signed RTGS forms remained in the custody of Ms.Meenaz H. Thanawala, Manager of the Opponent Bank.

7) It is contended that on 27th January, 2015 Ms.Meenaz H. Thanawala received hacked email from one Jennifer G. Thilodeaux from New York for urgent transfer of US$ 25000/-. She also mentioned the reason for making payment for the surgery. It is contended that Ms.Meenaz Thanawala without confirming the transfer and the foreign exchange rate i.e. the amount in INRs approved the RTGS form lying in her custody and sent the same to the Forex Department CC/15/249 for remittance/transfer of funds. It was contended that no confirmation of the transfer was made by Bank Manager. It was contended that on 30st January, 2015 Ms.Meenaz Thanewala received similar hacked email from Jennifer G. Thilodeaux from New York for transfer of amount of US$ 28000/- for making balance payment for the surgery. The complainant states that Ms.Meenaz Thanawalla once again without confirming the transfer and the foreign exchange rate i.e. the amount in INRs approved the RTGS form lying with her and sent the same to the Forex Department for remittance/transfer of funds.

8) It is contended that Ms.Meenaz Thanawala was very well known that requirement to transfer funds to USA was for his son‟s monthly expenses as he is pursuing his higher education in USA and the amount was restricted to US$ 2500/- per month as was evident in the standing instructions sent to her. It is contended that Ms.Meenaz Thanawala was grossly negligent and that is why while processing the request in both the above mentioned cases she did not bother to look at the name of the beneficiary, nor she bothered to call the Complainant to verify the instruction and she did not even confirm the foreign exchange rate with the complainants. It is contended that the complainants had no knowledge about the transactions which took place on 27th January, 2015 and 30th January, 2015 as those transactions were done on the basis of hacked emails and they did not receive any e-mail confirmation/intimation from the Bank Manager. It is contended that on 1st February, 2015, the complainant no.1 checked the account details and he came to know that there were two big transactions which were done from his overdraft Account No00140600000019. The complainant no.1 CC/15/249 states that he was shocked and surprised to see two transactions in his overdraft account. Complainant no.1 states that he checked his account and he called up Ms.Meenaz Thanawala, Manager of the opponent Bank for couple of times but she did not answer the call. The complainant no.1 also sent a text message requesting Ms.Meenaz Thanawala to contact immediately, but she never bothered to respond. Complainant no.1 further submits that thereafter he called up the Customer Care of the opponent bank and requested to freeze the account immediately but after exchanging couple of phone calls and spending couple of hours with them on phone the complainant no.1 was told that the account could not be freezed without the permission of the Branch. The complainant no.1 further states that he called up Mr.Hasan, Public Relationship Manager of the opponent Bank. He then informed the complainants that it was a Sunday and he won‟t be able to do anything but he said that he would certainly look into the matter. On 2 nd February, 2015 the complainant no.1 called up Ms.Meenaz Thanawala, Manager of the opponent bank and asked her about the above two transactions. The complainant no.1 states that Ms.Meenaz Thanawala replied that she just acted upon the emails received by her. The Complainant no.1 informed Ms.Meenaz Thanawala that he had not sent any e- mails to her. It is contended that Ms.Meenaz Thanawala realized that those were hacked emails and acting on those emails without confirming with the complainants she had done a great mistake. It is contended that the complainants lodged the complaint with the Vice President - NRI Business of Opponent Bank and sent copies of e- mails dated 27th January, 2015 and 30th January, 2015. It is contended that the complainant no.1 had requested the Manager of the opponent bank to investigate the matter and let him know in CC/15/249 detail the reason for such occurring. It is contended that the complainants waited for next three days and sought progress in the matter from the opponent bank. He also sent e-mail to Ms.Meenaz Thanawala. It is also contended that complainant no.1 sent complaint to Mr.K.B. Sharma, Head - Branch Control and Compliance Department of opponent bank as well as Vice President of NRI Business of Opponent Bank. The complainant no.1 also met Officers, namely Mr.Pillai and Mr.Narang and requested them to give copies of the documents but they refused to give him based on the instructions of the Corporate Office.

13) It is admitted fact that there was no request of transfer of funds in the account of son of the Complainants Anchit Mehta in the month of November and December, 2014. It is admitted fact that on 27/01/2015 Ms.Meenaz Thanawala, the Manager of Opponent Bank had received e-mail for transfer of US$ 25000/- in the account of Ms.Jennifer G. Thilodeaux at New York. Similar e-mail was also received on 30/01/2015 for transfer of US$ 28,000/- in the account Ms.Jennifer G. Thilodeaux. As per the e-mail the Branch Manager of Opponent transferred amount of US$ 25,000/- and US$ 28,000/- on 27/01/2015 and 30/01/2015 respectively. The Branch Manager had sent e-mail to the complainant no.1 and informed him about the transfer of money as per the contents of e-mail. It appears that e- mail I.D. of complainant no.1 was hacked and messages were sent by third person and in pursuance of the said e-mail the amounts were transferred. It appears that the complainants did not receive the e- mail sent by the Manager of the Opponent Bank on 27/01/2015 and 30/01/2015. It appears that the complainants verified his account on 1st February, 2015 and came to know about two big transactions of transfer of money from his account to the account of Ms.Jennifer G. Thilodeaux. Hence, he reverted back to the Officers of the Opponent Bank. They asked him to lodge a report. Similarly, the complainants had issued letters to many authorities including higher officers of the opponent as well as Reserve Bank of India, but, nothing has happened.

So, the complainants had taken steps promptly and informed the alleged fraud or illegal transfer of money in the account of Ms.Jennifer G. Thilodeaux. We have observed that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the officers of the Opponent Bank. Therefore, the complainants are entitled for zero liability. On this point, the learned advocate for the complainants CC/15/249 has relied on the ratio laid down in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Jesna Jose, in Revision Petition No.3333 of 2013 of the Hon'ble National Commission, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has relied on the circular dated 6th July, 2017. In the said case the Credit Card of the Complainant was misused and the opponent did not produce any evidence to substantiate evidence that the Credit Card was stolen and the Complainant had resorted to any fraud/forgery. In the present case also Complainants are not in fault. The opponent has also impliedly admitted that they received messages from the hacked e-mail of the complainant no.1 and the said e-mails were acted upon by the officers of the opponent. So, the complainants are entitled to Zero Liability on the basis of Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, stated supra.