Upholding an order passed by the Telangana state consumer disputes redressal commission, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to reimburse Rs63.74 lakh with 9% interest per annum (pa) and pay Rs3.20 lakh as compensation and litigation costs to a customer. In this case, SBI enabled internet banking without a senior citizen customer's consent through which Rs63.74 lakh was siphoned.
In
an order last month, the NCDRC bench of air vice-marshal (AVM) J Rajendra (retd) (presiding member) said, "Change of the banking facility from 'view only' to full transactions was allowed without informed consent of the complainants. By the time the Bank introduced the correction to the process of changing the option to the internet banking system, the consequent exploitation and loss were already suffered by the complainants. Therefore, to that extent, the deficiency in service of SBI with respect to its old and valued customers of the age profiles as that of the complainants and other otherwise challenged is manifest."
Hyderabad-based Biresh Chandra Gangopadhyay and his wife Arati had filed the original complaint before the state commission. On 9 August 2017, Ms Gangopadhyay opened three fixed deposits (FDs), one for Rs10 lakh and two for Rs15 lakh each. The FDs worth Rs40 lakh were opened for one year with a mandate to SBI to auto-renew them.
On 4 April 2019, Mr Gangopadhyay went to SBI to update his wife's passbook. However, since the passbook printing machine was not working, he was given an account statement from November 2018 to March 2019.
He was shocked that the account showed a balance of only Rs3 lakh instead of about Rs28 lakh. He noticed that all unauthorised withdrawals were made through internet banking, although the account had a 'view only' facility and did not have an internet banking facility for transactions.
Mr Gangopadhyay immediately brought this to the notice of the branch manager and lodged a police complaint on 9 April 2019. He also submitted a written complaint on 12 April 2019 to SBI, drawing the Bank's attention to the unauthorised withdrawal of about Rs63 lakh from Ms Gangopadhyay's account, including the premature and unauthorised closure of three FDs amounting to Rs40 lakh.
SBI contended that Ms Gangopadhyay's internet banking credentials were compromised and one-time passcodes (OTPs) were sent on each occasion when her internet banking was breached.
The Gangopadhyays then approached the state commission seeking Rs63.74 lakh with interest of 18%pa, compensation of Rs25 lakh for mental agony and Rs20,000 as litigation costs.
In the complaint, they stated that SBI knew that the customers were senior citizens who had consciously opted for 'view only' access and were 'not tech savvy'. "The Bank's negligence in changing the transaction access without even verification left the vulnerable senior customer exposed. Thus, the Bank must bear responsibility for facilitating the unauthorised transfers by enlarging the scope of internet banking facilities, including the use of the YONO application, without the informed consent of Mr Gangopadhyay."
In its written submission, SBI denied all the allegations and contended that it is the customer's obligation to prevent the unauthorised use of their mobile device and to avoid sharing their mobile banking password and PIN with unauthorised persons. "They shared their mobile, PIN number and other details with their associates, and all disputed transactions were conducted by these associates either in connivance with them or due to their negligence. Therefore, the Bank cannot be blamed under any circumstances."
"The domestic help of the Gangopadhyays, entrusted with performing banking transactions on their behalf, was involved in the disputed transactions. A total of 37 transactions amounting to Rs63,74,536 were undertaken in the names of five companies. However, the domestic helper and the companies were not added as parties to the proceedings, making the complaint liable to dismissal for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties," SBI says.
The state commission observed that it is unfortunate that the biggest government-owned bank in the country had resorted to defamatory statements against an old, vulnerable, and longstanding customer. "From the above discussions, we seek to emphasise that it is the fault of SBI to have linked the complainants' account with the internet banking facility without any request from them, which caused the fraud. They have also failed singularly in not concluding their investigation and finding out from where the initial request was generated to make Ms Gangopadhyay's account transactional."
"The underlying issue namely, how did internet banking transaction take place in the first instance when there was no specific permission or authority to do so-shows the possibility of co illusion of one or more members or employees of SBI. Considering the above, we are of the view that SBI should be directed to reimburse the amount siphoned along with interest and reasonable compensation for their suffering. SBI is at liberty to approach the concerned criminal court and claim any amount recovered by the police," the state commission says, while partly allowing the complaint.
It also directed SBI to pay Rs63.74 lakh with 9% interest from the date of the complaint, Rs3 lakh as compensation and Rs20,000 towards costs.
Being aggrieved by the order, SBI filed an appeal before NCDRC seeking to quash the state commission's order passed on 4 August 2022. It contended that cases involving fraud, cheating, and conspiracy should be referred to a civil court and not a consumer forum. "Previous decisions by NCDRC support the absence of jurisdiction in such matters. Additionally, the Gangopadhyays already sought recourse through cybercrime and the banking ombudsman, without success," it says.
Referring to Reserve Bank of India (RBI)'s guidelines and circulars, the counsel for SBI argued that banks are not liable to recover the lost amount when the customer was negligent in securing her internet banking credentials.
The counsel for the Gangopadhyays reiterated the issues raised in the complaint and the evidence. He asserted that the state commission had already gone into details in depth and determined that the Bank had not properly investigated the initiation of transactional rights.
He asserted that, after this incident, for protecting the interests of the elderly and otherwise challenged individuals, SBI had come up with the correction in the system mandating the physical presence of the individuals seeking a grant of an internet banking facility. "This step in itself is very material in establishing that the process adopted towards the use of technology and providing internet banking facility was in fact, a disservice to the elderly people who are blatantly vulnerable for being exploited, as happened in the case in question. The Bank dutifully corrected this blatant flaw by requiring the physical presence of the individuals concerned. This itself established gross deficiency in service to the Gangopadhyays beyond doubt."
The bench of AVM Rajendra (retd) observed that the internet banking platform adversely impacted the elderly couple in the present case who are the valued customers of the Bank where their driver, by being familiar with account number details and merely accessing the mobile phone, easily misappropriated such high-value funds.
"This happened even when the Gangopadhyays had sought 'view only' and internet banking facility was not requested. Change to internet banking facility was also obtained by the fraudster over the phone itself and perpetrated the offences. In this regard, it is an undisputed position that, allegedly, subsequent to this incident and apparently after requisite banking feedback, SBI changed the internet banking system to require such customers to be physically present at the Bank to provide for internet banking facility. Clearly, this is for ensuring necessary protection of interest of such customers who are not technically savvy and are highly vulnerable for exploitation due to their inherent limitations, which are beyond their control. Had such protection been available to the Gangopadhyays as well, these unauthorised transactions were unlikely to occasion," the bench says.
While the RBI guidelines provide for the timelines between which the complaint is to be filed, in the present case, NCDRC noted that Mr Gangopadhyay himself was unaware of the transactions that happened in his wife's account due to his old age and presumed absence of scope to check them over his mobile phone.
Evidently, the bench noted that Mr Gangopadhyay was not expecting account details over the phone. "Most likely, even if certain messages conveying the nature of transactions, transfer of funds and the leftover balance in the bank account were received, there is a good possibility that the fraudster had deleted those messages, thereby denying any scope for the complainant to discover the unauthorised transactions."
"While, without doubt, SBI followed its set Internet banking procedure as if the individual undertaking the transactions was genuine, the fact was to the contrary. Just by being familiar with the account number of the Gangopadhyays and thereafter merely accessing their mobile phone for a while he was able to undertake repeated fraudulent transactions at leisure. This included even transfers of physical FD instruments into cash that was deposited in the savings bank account of the Gangopadhyays, which was also misappropriated. Thus, the internet banking system, which is aimed at efficacy and convenience in banking transactions to the customers, unfortunately, entailed severe adverse impact on the complainants who are elderly people and exposed them to the risk of such frauds, even when they had sought 'view only' facility," NCDRC says.
While dismissing the appeal filed by SBI, the bench directed the lender to pay the award to the Gangopadhyays as ordered by the state commission.
(First Appeal No684 of 2022 Date: 30 July 2924)
Internet banking if done by owners of account is a boon & if a 3rd party is entrusted, it's a Bane!!
So if RBI mandates physical presence for enabling transactions, FD breaking etc, it increases time, cost for everyone
A phone is the most important thing here and every one should lock if up
2. She sent an online request for transaction enablement which SBI did with OTP unaware to owner
3. Going online , the lady closed FDs, transferred the amount to her & relatives...
seriously in govt owned banks