Case Law Details
HDFC Bank Limited Vs Jesna Jose (NCDRC)
In the present case, the Complainant stated that the credit card was in her possession when the disputed transactions had taken place. She has further stated that the transactions had taken place remotely, several miles away from her actual location and therefore, the reason for the fraudulent transactions must be forgery/hacking of the card or some other technical and/or security lapse in the electronic banking system through which the transactions had taken place. The Bank has merely stated that the Credit Card must have been stolen and that it is due to the Card Holder’s negligence that she lost safe custody of her card. The Petitioner, however, has produced no evidence to substantiate its averment that the credit card was stolen or that the Complainant has resorted to any fraud/forgery. In today’s digital age, the possibility that the credit card was hacked or forged cannot be ruled out. In the absence of any evidence that the credit card was stolen, I hold the Bank liable for the unauthorized transactions.
Petitioner-Bank cannot rely on arbitrary terms and conditions to wriggle out of its liability towards customers and any such terms and conditions must be in conformity with the directions issued by the RBI which is responsible for safekeeping of the Banking Systems and maintaining checks and balances in the same. As per the RBI circular, zero liability will rest with the customer, where the deficiency lies in the banking system. The first unauthorized transaction took place on the 15.12.2008. Admittedly, the said transactions were observed by the Bank on 15.12.2008 itself. The Complainant’s father was contacted only on 18.12.2008. Thereafter, on 20.12.2008, within three days of receiving information form the Bank the Complainant’s father notified the Bank that the transactions were unauthorized. In such circumstances, therefore, even if the deficiency was not with the Bank, but elsewhere in the system, the Bank will be held liable for all the 29 unauthorized transactions which were effected from 15.12.2008 till the card was hotlisted, i.e. till 20.12.2008. The aforesaid RBI circular as well decision of this Commission in Punjab National Bank and Anr. V Leader Valves II (2020) CPJ 92 (NC), are both squarely applicable in the present matter.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
1. The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 09.04.2013 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. A/11/99 wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
