A State Consumer Redressal Commission has struck down a lower court order that compensated a customer whose money was transferred out of his account without his knowledge via net banking.
In an order which can affect scores of consumers who use net banking facility, a State Consumer Redressal Commission has struck down a lower court order that compensated a customer whose money was transferred out of his account without his knowledge via net banking.
A bench comprising presiding member SR Khanzode and member Dhanraj Khamatkar recently upheld HDFC Bank’s contention that the consumer was informed about the risks involved in net banking as stipulated in the security instructions and the form executed by the customer to avail net banking facility.
Besides, the commission held that the consumer also informed them of the fraudulent transfer too late.
In January 2009, the complainant, Nikhil Phutane, who works for an international bank, found that Rs4.6 lakh had been transferred from his HDFC Bank account to one Shukla’s account in Lucknow and to one Rajiv’s account at Vijaywada in November 2008.
Phutane first approached the bank with the complaint, but to no avail. He then approached the police who arrested the accused, but recovered only Rs70,500 from them.
The consumer forum at Mumbai Central in March 2010 passed an order in favour of Phutane and asked the bank to reimburse him Rs3.89 lakh with interest and compensation of Rs35,000. The bank went in appeal before the state forum against this order.
Advocate Ashutosh Marathe who appeared for the bank argued that Phutane did not adversely respond to the sms and emails sent to him before and after effecting the transfer of money from the account. “In fact, before the transfer, the bank even sent an alert sms asking if the accused were the beneficiaries, in whose account money can be transferred. The bank waits for 24 hours before the money is transferred,” said Marathe.
They also argued that only the complainant knows about the net banking password, but failed to observe security norms. Besides, Phutane responded to the bank about the fraudulent transaction 45 days after the money was transferred. The court held that no case of negligence is made out against the bank.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}