STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2019 (Arisen out of order dated 14/05/2019 in Complaint No.253 of 2014 passed by the District Consumer Commission Solapur)

Mr.Motilal Hajarimal Agarwal R/o.163, Modi, Solapur 413 001 ……..Appellant/org.complainant Versus

1.The Zonal Manager, Bank of India Employment chowk Solapur

2.The Branch Manger Bank of India Sadar Bazar Branch, Sat Rasta Solapur ….Respondents/org.Opponents BEFORE:

Mr.Mukesh V.Sharma – Presiding Member Ms.Poonam V. Maharshi – Member PRESENT: Advocate Anand Kulkarni for appellant.

Advocate Prashant Shinde i/b. Advocate A.B.Shinde & Co.

for respondents.

FINAL ORDER (Dt.13/01/2025)

Per Hon’ble Mr.Mukesh V.Sharma – Presiding Member

1. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated May 14, 2019, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Solapur, in Consumer Complaint No. 253 of 2014. The appellant alleges deficiency in service by the respondent bank, leading to unauthorized withdrawals from his savings account.

2. The appellant having Savings Account No. 070410100009577 with the respondent bank. On July 16, 2014, he noticed multiple unauthorized transactions totalling ₹23,020/-. He promptly reported these transactions to the bank and requested that his account be frozen to prevent further unauthorized access. Additionally, he informed and later on lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with the Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur, alleging cyber fraud.

3. The appellant contends that he has always exercised due diligence in safeguarding his banking credentials and has never disclosed sensitive information, such as his ATM PIN or account details, to any unauthorized person. He asserts that the unauthorized transactions were executed without the requisite One-Time Password (OTP) authentication, indicating a potential security lapse on the part of the bank.

4. The appellant argued that the respondent bank failed to secure his personal and financial data, leading to its unauthorized access by fraudsters. He further contends that the bank did not take prompt action upon being notified of the fraudulent transactions, nor did it provide a satisfactory explanation as to how his confidential information was compromised.

5. The appellant cited the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines, which mandate that banks are responsible for ensuring the security of their customers' data and are required to report and address fraudulent activities promptly. He argued that the bank's failure to adhere to these guidelines constitutes a deficiency in service.

6. In their defence, the respondent bank denies any negligence or deficiency in service. They contend that the appellant may have inadvertently compromised his banking credentials, leading to the unauthorized transactions. The bank asserts that it has implemented robust security measures in compliance with regulatory standards and that any breach could be attributed to the appellant's negligence.

7. The respondent further argued that upon receiving the appellant's complaint, they conducted an internal investigation but found no evidence of a data breach within their systems. They argued that the transactions in question were authenticated using the appellant's credentials, suggesting that the security of these credentials may have been compromised due to the appellant's own actions and careless conducts.

8. The respondent also contends that they have complied with all regulatory requirements, including those set forth by the RBI, and that they have taken all necessary precautions to prevent unauthorized access to customer accounts. They argue that the appellant's claim lacks merit and should be dismissed.

9. We heard both the learned advocates and perused the RBI's guidelines on 'Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions' place the onus on banks to ensure the security of electronic banking transactions and to compensate customers for