J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 28th day of January, 2021 The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P13 order of the Banking Ombudsman. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P13 and to direct the 2nd respondent to reimburse ₹6.26 lakhs to the petitioner with interest.

2. The petitioner holds an NRI SB Account with the 2nd respondent-Bank. On 25.07.2015, the petitioner noticed that there were unauthorised debits totalling ₹6,26,000/- in his account occurred on 08.07.2015. The petitioner immediately informed the Relationship Manager and Customer Care and also filed police complaint which was acknowledged as per Ext.P1. Five unauthorised payments were effected on 08.07.2015 from the petitioner’s bank account through net-banking. The money was transferred to third parties in ICICI Bank accounts.

3. According to bank authorities, there is a three-layer security control (login password, Grid authentication and OTP alerts. The petitioner informed the Bank that ever since the account was opened, the petitioner was not provided OTP alert service. The Bank also admits that the five unauthorised transactions were made by two of their customers. As the grievance remained unredressed, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint before the Banking Ombudsman.

4. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 statement also before the Ombudsman and the Bank filed Ext.P5 reply. The Ombudsman, as per Ext.P7 order, advised the Bank to take the help of Law Enforcement Agency to get confirmation regarding the email sent by the Bank to the complainant from the Yahoo admin. The Banking Ombudsman ordered that if it is established that OTPs were not sent to the complainant to his registered e-mail ID, the disputed amount should be paid by the Bank. However, after accepting Ext.P7 order of the Ombudsman, the Bank did not act upon and did not reimburse the amount of `6.2 lakhs to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner stated that the police registered Ext.P8 Crime under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 66(C)(B) of the IT Act. The Final Report submitted by the police would show that the amount wholly belonging to the petitioner was stolen by certain persons and it happened due to the negligence of the Bank.

6. The petitioner challenged the order of the Ombudsman in this Court filing W.P.(C) No.30642/2017. This Court disposed of the writ petition as per Ext.P10 judgment dated 21.12. 2018 holding as follows:-

“9. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the summary rejection of a complaint which had been entertained by the Ombudsman in terms of Clause 13(a) of the Scheme was not warranted in the instant case. Since no settlement had been effected in the matter within the time prescribed and since the Ombudsman had apparently proceeded with the hearing of the matter even thereafter, I am of the opinion that the rejection on the ground that the complaint itself was not maintainable is unsustainable.

10. In the result, the proceedings of the Ombudsman closing the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Clause 13(a) of the Scheme are set aside. Exts.P8, P10 and P11 orders will also stand set aside. There will accordingly be a direction to the Banking Ombudsman to consider the complaint preferred by the petitioner on merits and pass orders on the same, after hearing the parties as well, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

The petitioner filed Ext.P11 statement and Ext.P12 arguments before the Ombudsman.

7. The petitioner would state that he brought to the notice of the Ombudsman the judgment of this Court in State Bank of India v. P.V. George [2019 (1) KHC 515] wherein this Court held that if a customer suffers loss in connection with transactions made without his junction by fraudsters, it has to be presumed that it is on account of the failure on the part of the Bank to put in place a system which prevents such withdrawals, and the banks are therefor