National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Vishwanath (Presiding Member) upheld the State Commission’s Order.
Petitioner/Complainant who was an account holder of HDFC Bank and was working as an officer with Qatar National Bank had deposited an amount of Rs 4,60,000. He found to his surprise that the entire balance was transferred from his account to another account as per the Bank Statement.
Later on filing a complaint in view of the above, the culprit was found by the police but only an amount of Rs 70,500 could be recovered.
Alleging deficiency in service and seeking recovery of the balance amount the consumer complaint was filed.
OPs denied that any of their employees were involved in any fraudulent act. Funds were transferred as per the instructions received from the Complainant through net banking and since the respondent did not respond to the verification email and messages about the transfer request, the said was affected.
Further, the OPs contended that the complainant was informed after the transaction was completed. Adding to this, it was stated that:
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.
District Forum allowed the complaint, whereas the State Commission held that the complainant failed to establish negligence against the Bank.
State Commission also added that the Bank after following the due procedure, transferred the funds.
Being aggrieved with the State Commission’s Order, the present revision petition was filed.
Analysis and Decision
Bench noted that the petitioner availed of the Net Banking facility and signed the TPT Form agreeing to the terms and conditions. He being a Banker himself was aware of the nature of transactions. He was provided with a customer ID and Net Banking Password (IPIN), which he should have kept with himself. Before the transfer of funds, a customer was to add the name of beneficiaries. On any request for transfer of funds, the Bank sends a mail and SMS alert, which the Bank has done so in the present case.
The Bank waited for 24 hours and not receiving any adverse feed-back, effected the transfer. Once the transfer of funds was made, again the Petitioner was informed of the same by the Respondent/ Bank. Only after 47 days of transaction did the Petitioner choose to complain.
Hence, no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents was found.
Therefore, complainant failed to establish that the Bank had acted mala fidely, fraudulently and in violation of the security procedure. No illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity was found in the State Commission’s order.[Nikhil Phutane v. HDFC Bank Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 51, decided on 09-03-2021]
Advocates before the Commission:
For the Petitioner: Mr Nikhil Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr Sharique Hussain, Advocate