Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Nikhil Phutane – Petitioner
versus
Chairman, HDFC Bank Ltd. and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.767 of 2011
(Against the Order dated 30/09/2010 in Appeal No.483/2010 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 9.3.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21 and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11)] – Net Banking – Fund transfer – Deficiency in service – Claim for – Petition-complainant is an account holder of the respondent-Bank – Petitioner availed of Net Banking Facility and signed the TPT Form agreeing to terms and conditions – Admittedly he deposited Rs. 4,60,000/- in his account but the same transferred to some other beneficiary – Criminal Case filed, however, recovery of Rs. 70,500/- could only be made – Complaint for recovery of Rs. 3,89,500/- made out, which the District Forum allowed – However, State Commission set aside the same on ground that the complainant failed to establish negligence against the Bank – Hence this request for transfer of funds, the Bank sends a mail and SMS alert, which the Bank has done no – Bank waited for 24 hours and not received any adverse feedback therefore finally effected the transfer – Once transfer of funds made, again petitioner was informed of the same by respondent-Bank – Only after 47 days of transaction, petitioner made the complaint against – Therefore, deficiency in service on part of respondents ruled out – Interference with impugned order declined.
Held: Heard the learned Counsels for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a customer of HDFC Bank and held SB Account No.0240156047419299 with Customer ID No.24901291 with the Santacruz Branch. It is also noted that he himself was working with a Bank. The Petitioner availed the Net Banking facility and filled up and signed the TPT Forms (Application Form for Third Party Funds Transfers) through Net Banking. This forum also included the terms and conditions. He admittedly deposited Rs.4,60,000/- in his account which was reflected in his account on 23.10.2008. However, the statement for the month of November 2008, surprised him as he noticed that the entire amount was transferred from his account to some beneficiaries. He thereupon, filed a Criminal Case with the Santacruz Police Station on 16.01.2009, who were able to recover an amount of Rs.70,500. Alleging deficiency in service, a Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum by the Petitioner/ Complainant for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.3,89,500/-. The District Forum allowed the Complaint. The Respondents/ Opposite Parties filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the State Commission had wrongly set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the Appeal. The State Commission failed to consider the fact that money had been transferred from the Petitioner’s account without his authorisation due to negligence of the Bank, which amounts to deficiency in service. Their negligence caused huge financial loss to the Petitioner. The impugned order be, therefore, set aside.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents stated that there was correspondence between them and the Petitioner through e-mail and through SMS. Funds were transferred on receiving request for funds transfer. The Petitioner was also informed after completion of the transaction. The State Commission had also observed that all the evidence adduced on behalf of the Complainant showed that no officer of the Respondent Bank connived with the culprit or acted in any fraudulent manner in the entire transaction. Police investigation also showed that the culprit had nothing to do with any Bank officials. The Petitioner executed a TPT form for obtaining Net Banking facility. The Complainant was also made aware about the risks involved in the Net Banking and security instructions were also made available to him. Transfer from the account of the Petitioner to the beneficiaries was made after following all the net banking norms and procedures.
The State Commission noted that the Branch Manager–Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit to the effect that alert e-mails and SMS had been sent to the Petitioner intimating him about adding names of the beneficiaries and request for transfer of fund received in favour of the beneficiaries of the Complainant. Since no adverse response was received in 24 hours, transfer of the fund was affected and information of the same was also sent to the Petitioner/Complainant through e-mail and SMS. Certificate from the Air2Web India Pvt., Ltd., through whom e-mail were sent and delivered to the Complainant, stated as follows:
“This is to confirm that Air2web (India) Pvt. Ltd., has sent HDFC Bank’s E-mail alerts to email id nikhil_ phutane @hotmail.com on 13.11.2008 at 08.30 am for beneficiary addition and on 14.11.2008 at 11.46 a m for transaction conducted.
We also confirm the successful delivery of the messages. Further, we will not be able to retrieve the same, as our security policy is to not to retain any data, which is more than three months old.”
The State Commission recorded that there was no denial by the Petitioner/Complainant on receiving the e-mail and SMS nor rebuttal of the evidence of Air2web filed by the Respondents/Opposite Parties. The Bank after following the due procedure, transferred the fund and there was no negligence nor deficiency in service committed by the Bank. The State Commission, therefore, set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the Appeal of the Respondents/Opposite Parties.
The Petitioner availed the Net Banking facility and signed the TPT Form agreeing to the terms and conditions. He being a Banker himself was aware of the nature of transactions. He was provided with a customer ID and Net Banking Password (IPIN), which he should have kept with himself. Before transfer of funds, a customer was to add the name of beneficiaries. On any request for transfer of funds, the Bank sends a mail and SMS alert, which the Bank has done so in the present case. The Bank waited for 24 hours and not receiving any adverse feed-back, effected the transfer. Once the transfer of funds was made, again the Petitioner was informed of the same by the Respondent/ Bank. Only after 47 days of transaction did the Petitioner choose to complain. There is, thus, no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.
The Petitioner/Complainant failed to establish that the Bank had acted mala fidely, fraudulently and in violation of the security procedure. I therefore, do not find any illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, Revision Petition no. 767 of 2011 is dismissed. (Paras 7 to 13)
Result: Petition Dismissed.
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 30.09.2010 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. A/10/483.
2. Petitioner/Complainant is an account holder of HDFC Bank with Customer ID No.24901291 with Respondent No.2, Santacruz Branch. The case of the Complainant was that he was working as an officer with Qatar National Bank at Qatar. He deposited Rs.4,60,000/- which was reflected in his account on 23.10.2008. Due to professional commitment, he could not verify the account in December, though he checked it on the net. He, however, to his surprise found that the entire balance of Rs.4,60,000/- was transferred from his account to another account, as per the Bank Statement for the month of November, 2008. He filed a Criminal Complaint with the Santacruz Police Station on 16.01.2009. Though the culprit was caught by the Police, only an amount of Rs.70,500/- could be recovered. Alleging negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and seeking recovery of the balance amount of Rs.3,89,500/-, a Consumer Complaint was filed with the following prayer:
1. The Opposite Parties be directed jointly or severally to credit Rs.3,89,500/- to the Complainant’s account along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 14.11.2008;
2. The Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards the compensation for physical, mental agony and harassment caused to the Complainant;
3. The Opposite Parties be directed to pay legal cost of this Complaint being Rs.40,000/-;
4. The Opposite Parties be directed to restrain from practicing unfair trade practices;
5. The Complainant be permitted to add, alter and amend the Complaint when deem fit by the Hon’ble Court; and
6. Any other relief.
3. The case was contested by the Opposite Parties. They denied that any of their employees was involved in any fraudulent act. The funds were transferred as per the instructions received from the Complainant through Net Banking. Since the Complainant did not respond to the verification e-mails and messages about the transfer request received by the Bank, the transfer was affected. The Opposite Parties further stated that the Complainant was also informed of the transfer of funds, after completion of the transaction. Only a Complainant could know about Net Banking Password ‘IPIN’ and nobody else could operate the account. They also took the plea that the alleged fraudulent transaction was reported to the Bank only on 31.12.2008, i.e., 47 days after the transaction date.
4. The District Forum after hearing both the Parties allowed the Complaint and passed the following order:
“Complaint no.141 of 2009 is allowed.
With this period of 45 days from this order Opposite Parties nos.1 and 2 are directed individually or jointly to pay following amount to the Complainant:
1. To pay Rs.3,89,500/- with interest @ 8% per annum with effect from 14.11.2008 to the date of order;
2. Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony;
3. Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenditure.
Complainant is entitled to receive from the Opposite Parties nos.1 and 2 individually and or jointly. Interest @ 12% per annum on the above amount with effect from the date of this order if Opposite Parties fail to comply with this order within the stipulated period.”
5. The Respondents/Opposite Parties, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that the Complainant had failed to establish negligence against the Bank. The State Commission, after hearing the Counsels for the Parties and perusing the record, allowed the Appeal and set aside the orders of the District Forum. The State Commission held as under:
“Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.03.2010 is quashed and set aside and in turn the Consumer Complaint no. 141 of 2009 stands dismissed.”
6. Aggrieve
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
