No Assumption of Deficiency in Service can be Made Without Evidence: NCDRC

Niel E. Lobo Vs Bank of Baroda (NCDRC Delhi)

Summary: In Niel E. Lobo vs Bank of Baroda (NCDRC Delhi), the complainant, an NRI in the USA, alleged unauthorized transfer of USD 80,000 (₹43.87 lakh) from his account to a third party in North Carolina, claiming his email was hacked and forged instructions were sent to the bank. After the Banking Ombudsman declined the case for involving criminal elements, he approached the Karnataka State Commission, which dismissed the complaint, holding that it required adjudication under the Information Technology Act and that the complainant had not impleaded his Financial Advisor. On appeal, the bank contended that transfers were executed on instructions received from the complainant’s registered email, per account terms, and no deficiency could be presumed without proof. It argued that hacking, forgery, and fraud are criminal issues beyond the scope of summary consumer proceedings, relying on City Union Bank Ltd. v. R. Chandramohan and other precedents. The NCDRC observed that both the Ombudsman and the State Commission had correctly noted the matter’s criminal nature, arising from alleged email hacking, and that consumer liability requires proven deficiency in service. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in City Union Bank (2023) 7 SCC 775, it reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and no assumption of deficiency can be made. Since no evidence was produced to show the bank acted contrary to procedure, and the transactions followed instructions from the registered email, the Commission upheld the State Commission’s order and dismissed the appeal, affirming that genuineness of claim must be established with evidence.