Court orders Indian Bank to pay Rs 10 lacs compensation for transferring money from customer’s account to unknown person
Marked by a lack of due diligence by Indian Bank, Mr. Harish Chander faced a significant setback when an unauthorized transaction of Rs. 10 Lakhs occurred due to deficiencies in JIO’s service. The issuance of his mobile number to another SIM card paved the way for two unauthorized transactions, prompting Mr. Chander to seek justice.
Complaint and Bank’s Response
Upon receiving an email notifying the Rs. 10 lakh transfer to an unknown account, Mr. Chander promptly approached the bank, discovering three unauthorized transactions. Despite his immediate request to freeze the account and report the incident, the bank’s lackluster response and uncooperative attitude exacerbated the situation.
Investigation and Revelation
Further investigation revealed a JIO bill associated with the unauthorized transactions, highlighting a failure in the verification process for the SIM card change. The complainant’s proactive steps included registering complaints with the Cyber Crime Portal and the bank, but the responses were far from satisfactory.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s Observations
The Commission acknowledged Mr. Chander’s prompt reporting to both the bank and the police on the day of the fraudulent transactions. Citing Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines, which place the onus of proving customer liability on the bank in unauthorized electronic transactions, the Commission delved into the specifics of zero and limited liability scenarios outlined by the RBI.
Bank’s Zero Liability and Neglect of Obligations
Considering the prompt reporting and lack of immediate action by the bank to reverse the fraudulently withdrawn amount, the District Commission concluded that the bank was under zero liability as per RBI guidelines. However, the bank’s failure to fulfill obligations, including obtaining CCTV footage and conducting a thorough inquiry, held it accountable for compensating Mr. Chander.
JIO’s Deficient Service
The Commission acknowledged that JIO’s deficient service directly caused the complainant’s loss. However, as Mr. Chander did not seek relief against JIO, the Commission refrained from quantifying compensation against the telecom provider.
Verdict and Compensation
In a decisive ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the bank to pay Rs. 10,00,000 within thirty days, along with 9% p.a. interest from the fraudulent transaction date. An additional compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 was mandated for the mental distress and harassment suffered by Mr. Chander. This verdict underscores the importance of accountability and timely action in addressing unauthorized transactions.
