The Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Agartala recently ordered the State Bank of India (SBI) to compensate a customer who had lost money through OTP fraud [Satish Debbarma V. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and Two Others].
The bank, in this case, had refunded a part of the money lost due to the fraud some days after the incident took place, but not all of the money lost.
By a June 21 order, the State consumer forum ordered SBI to pay the remaining amount as well as compensation for deficiency in service.
A coram of Commission president Justice Arindam Lodh and members Daliya Saha and Jhantu Debnath found that that SBI officials was responsible for delays in responding to a complaint, which led to the loss of around ₹1.49 lakhs.
"Had the Bank Authorities been more vigilant and diligent in rendering service to the complainant-appellant, then, the debit of the amount of Rs.1,49,500/- would have been easily avoided," the SCDRC said.
The Commission also rejected the bank's explanation that the delay was on account of the customer complaint being made over the weekend.
In this regard, the Commission took critical note that the bank had waited three days before providing assistance to the customer. SBI had replied that the two of those days were holidays, being a Saturday and a Sunday. However, the Commissioner flatly rejected this justification.
"The date 20.08.2022 was neither second Saturday nor the fourth Saturday. It might be a closing day, but, on that day also the Bank in dealing with customer related issues and when it involves financial matters alike the present case should have come forward to provide appropriate and adequate service to the customers ... this is utter negligence of duties and the Bank was totally deficient to render adequate and appropriate service, the customers of the Bank ordinarily expect", said the Commission.
By way of background, Satish Debbarma, a customer of SBI received a fraudulent call on August 19, 2022, which led him to share his One-Time Password (OTP).
Consequently, his account was hacked and over three lakh rupees were debited from his account. He immediately tried to contact the SBI Branch Manager but could not make the call as his phone was also hacked.
Debbarma then rushed to the Branch Manager of SBI and told him about the fraud.
The Branch Manager immediately deactivated all of Debbarma's accounts at about 7 PM, and averted subsequent attempts made by the hackers to transfer more money. A police complaint was also lodged on the following day.
On August 24, 2022, SBI released a sum of ₹1,96,000 to Debbarma, leaving the balance amount lost due to the fraud as unpaid.
The customer eventually approached the district consumer court seeking a refund of the unpaid amount. After the district forum dismissed his complaint, he filed an appeal before the State consumer forum.
In his complaint, the Debbarma pointed out that after the incident, he had immediately contacted the bank's system administrator only for the official to reply that he could not do anything before Monday, August 22, 2022.
Notably, the State commission found that the entire amount of money that was hacked was on hold and kept in a parking account of the bank until 12 AM on August 22. Despite this, the system administrator did not do anything to ensure that the money kept on hold was refunded to the bank account of the customer.
The Commission further noted that the bank had a system in place to ensure that all commercial transactions are kept on hold in the system of the bank for at least 48 hours before it is settled.
In this case, the Commission found that the amount sought to be transferred by the hackers was kept on hold for over 96 hours, before only a portion of the amount was debited from the parking account of the SBI.
The Commission observed that the customer had repeatedly urged the system administrator to take steps so that this money is not transferred to the hackers, but that the administrator to not discharge his duty as a bank officer.
"(The system administrator) even did not look after the interest of the Bank, his employer," the Commission remarked.
It concluded that this was utter negligence on the bank's part and that the bank had failed to provide the level of service ordinarily expected by its customers.
Therefore, the State Commission directed SBI to pay the balance amount of ₹1,49,500 to the customer within three weeks.
The Commission also ordered SBI to pay ₹50,000 to the customer as compensation for their deficiency in service.
Advocates A Barik and DK. Paul appeared for the customer, while advocates P Saha and AL Saha represented the SBI.
[Read Order]