Holding HDFC Bank Ltd responsible for rendering due service and failing to send SMS alerts for cash withdrawal from automated teller machines (ATMs) from seven places, including cities from Assam and Haryana, within four days, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) directed the lender to pay Rs45,000 and an interest of 6%pa (per annum) on Rs35,000, the fraudulent cash withdrawn from different ATMs.
In
an order last week, the NCDRC bench of Dr Inder Jit Singh (presiding member) says, "Both Assam state consumer disputes redressal commission and Nagaon district consumer disputes redressal forum have given well-reasoned orders and we are in agreement with their observations and findings. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the state commission hence, the same is upheld."
The bench noted that Rs35,000 was withdrawn in seven transactions, four on 29 June 2013, one on 2 July 2013 and two on 3 July 2013 from different locations like ATMs at Hojai branch, NWD Guwahati, EAW Sonipat, and NWD Sonipat from the account of Nagaon, Assam-based Satish Baishya. He held an account with the Hojai branch of HDFC Bank.
However, Mr Baishya did not receive any information or SMS from HDFC Bank about these seven transactions. When he visited the Bank branch to withdraw money on 12 August 2013, he came to know about these fraudulent transactions. He immediately filed a first information report (FIR) and informed HDFC Bank. He contended that he never received any SMS for these transactions, while he has always been getting SMSs for earlier transactions.
He contended that he had visited the branch several times, but the HDFC Bank officials ignored him and kept aside the matter of alleged fraudulent withdrawal from his ATM. He then filed a complaint before the Nagaon district forum.
While allowing the complaint of Mr Baishya, the district forum directed HDFC Bank to pay Rs35,000 with 6%pa interest and Rs10,000 for compensation for harassment and litigation costs.
HDFC Bank challenged the order before the state commission. While dismissing the appeal, the state commission directed the bank to comply with the direction of the district forum.
Aggrieved with the orders of the district forum and the state commission, HDFC Bank filed a revision petition (RP) before NCDRC. It contended that there was gross misconduct and negligence or ill-intention on the part of Mr Baishya, who probably gave his ATM card and confidential pin to someone and has now dropped all the onus of his loss (if any) on HDFC Bank, citing reasons of deficiency in services.
"The fora below, without waiting for the outcome of the criminal investigation, had formed an opinion beyond their jurisdiction and acted like an investigating team, thereby holding that the Bank is responsible for the loss of money from the Respondent's account due to an alleged fraudulent withdrawal by some unknown individual and in the same time holding another view that no ATM transaction was possible without an ATM card and thus creating confusion," the lender contended.
Mr Baishya did not appear before NCDRC. However, perusing his contention before the district forum and the state commission, the bench of Dr Singh observed that Mr Baishya contended mainly about the amount illegally withdrawn from his account and since the bank failed to take care of his money, there was a deficiency of service of HDFC Bank as he is the consumer of the bank.
NCDRC also referred to observations made by the state commission in its order. The state commission noted that the district forum considered a failure on the part of HDFC Bank to produce the CCTV footage. "Though CCTV camera was fitted to the booth at Hojai under HDFC Bank however no such video footage of the relevant dates on which the three transactions were carried out from the said booth was produced by the Bank nor it is the case of the Bank that during the relevant date the CCTV camera was out of order. Nor there is any denial of the fact regarding the existence of the facilities of CCTV camera within the HDFC Bank ATM booth premises at Hojai. Under such circumstances we hold that HDFC Bank failed to discharge its onus by disproving the fact pleaded by Mr Baishya about the fraudulent withdrawal of the money through the transactions starting from 29 June 2013."
"In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the fora below against HDFC Bank," NCDRC says adding, "Both state commission and district forum have given well-reasoned orders and we are in agreement with their observations and findings. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the state commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the RP is dismissed.”
(Revision Petition No57 of 2024 Date: 9 July 2024)
