Lakhs of rupees, amounting to 51.88 lakhs, were fraudulently withdrawn from the bank account of businessperson Somanath Chatterjee in Lucknow. Bank of Baroda denied reimbursing the amount, citing the account holder’s negligence. Chatterjee appealed to the State Consumer Commission.
After hearings from both sides, Justice Ashok Kumar, the head of the State Consumer Commission, ordered Bank of Baroda to refund 51.88 lakhs to Somanath, along with a 10% annual interest. Additionally, the bank was directed to pay 10 lakhs for mental anguish and 25,000 for legal expenses.
In this case of fraud, the account holder, a resident of Ashiyana in Lucknow, holds a savings account, a current account, and a 50 lakh overdraft account in Bank of Baroda’s Narihi branch. He had deposited 60 lakhs in fixed deposits in the bank due to the overdraft account. Transactions from the overdraft account can only be made through OTP.
On the night of March 25, 2021, his mobile phone was turned off. The next morning, he discovered that 1.89 lakhs were withdrawn from one account and 49.99 lakhs from the overdraft account. He didn’t receive any OTP, confirmation SMS, call, or email before such significant withdrawals.
He immediately informed the bank and filed an FIR with the cyber fraud cell. After an investigation, the bank blamed Somanath Chatterjee, stating that OTPs and messages were sent, thus absolving the bank of any fraud responsibility.
Chatterjee also lodged a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman but received no relief. Before delivering a verdict on the case, the State Consumer Commission studied the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. It found that in cases of cyber fraud, banks have more responsibility than customers. The commission emphasized that if there is no negligence on the part of the customer or the bank’s system, the customer should be compensated for the loss. The commission stated that banks should make their systems foolproof.
After listening to the arguments, the commission stated that it cannot be denied that the bank employees, in collusion with fraudsters, may have temporarily hacked the complainant’s registered mobile number along with the complainant’s account for a few minutes.