The court clarified that the burden of proving negligence lies with the complainant and found that the bank followed proper protocol, dismissing the revision petition.

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:

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;

The Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards the compensation for physical, mental agony and harassment caused to the Complainant;

The Opposite Parties be directed to pay legal cost of this Complaint being Rs.40,000/-;

The Opposite Parties be directed to restrain from practicing unfair trade practices;

The Complainant be permitted to add, alter and amend the Complaint when deem fit by the Hon’ble Court; and

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:

To pay Rs.3,89,500/- with interest @ 8% per annum with effect from 14.11.2008 to the date of order;

Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony;

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 Fo