THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.31150 OF 2024

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the judgment, dated

30.07.2024, rendered in First Appeal No.684 of 2022, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short, ‘National Commission’) and also the order, dated 04.08.2022, passed in C.C.No.102 of 2019 by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘State Commission’).

2. Heard Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V.U.S.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank and Sri D.V. Sitaram Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank had contended that the respondents were wife and husband. They have opened joint Savings Bank Account with the petitioner-Bank bearing A/c. No.10123103876 at Balkampet Branch, Hyderabad. The respondents have opened three fixed deposits for Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/-, totaling Rs.40,00,000/-, on 09.08.2017 for a period of one year with a mandate of auto renewal. Accordingly, the petitioner-Bank has issued Fixed Deposit Receipts to the respondents.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank had further contended that with the technological advancement and as per the RBI guidelines, internet banking facility was promoted by all the Banks to enable all the depositors/customers of the Banks to voluntarily register themselves with internet banking facility and transact their accounts by withdrawing the amounts, transferring the amounts or create or break fixed deposits through the App itself and also through internet banking facility. As per the RBI Master Circular, dated 01.07.2011, all the Banks were mandated to ensure that all the banking facilities such as cheque book facility including third party cheques, ATM facility, net banking facility, locker facility, retail loans, credit card etc., are invariably offered to the visually challenged persons also, without any discrimination.

5. Learned Senior Counsel had also drawn our attention to the Terms of Service (Terms & Conditions) of petitioner-Bank and Clause No.4 of the said terms clearly states that a user would be allotted with a User-ID and Password (to be used at the time of login) by the Bank in the first instance and the user has to mandatorily change the User-ID and Password assigned by the Bank on accessing the internet banking services for the first time. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that only when the User-ID and Password are typed, the customer can use the internet banking services and the transaction will be completed, when OTP is entered.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank had further contended that the respondents have admittedly approached the petitioner-Bank for internet banking facility.

Initially, they opted for ‘view only’ facility. However, later the respondents have enabled transaction rights by logging into petitioner-Bank’s website on 05.08.2018 at 11:20 AM and carried out certain transactions.

7. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the petitioner-Bank, in order to safeguard the interest of the customers and to ensure that the customers accounts are not being hacked or fake transactions are being taken place without their knowledge, send SMS messages and OTPs to the registered mobile number of the customers. Only when the OTP sent to the customers is entered, the transaction will be done. In the instant case, SMS messages and OTPs were sent as a precaution to the registered mobile number of the respondents i.e. 9440531348 and only when the respondents have entered the said OTP number, the online transactions have been carried out.

8. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that