MUMBAI: Observing that zero liability rests with the customer when the deficiency lies in the banking system, earlier this week the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed HDFC Bank to reimburse around Rs 3 lakh fraudulently debited from a Thane woman's pre-paid forex card via over 29 transactions in 2008. Jesna Jose, the complainant who currently lives abroad, will also receive around Rs 80,000 in interest and compensation. The commission rejected the bank's claim that the woman had not taken care of the card and hence was liable for the fraud.
"The petitioner (bank) has produced no evidence to substantiate its averment that the card was stolen or that the complainant has resorted to any fraud or forgery. In today's digital age, the possibility that the card was hacked or forged cannot be ruled out. In the absence of any evidence that the card was stolen, I hold the bank liable for the unauthorized transactions," the commission said.
Jose had submitted the complaint before the district consumer forum in 2009. She said she procured the card in 2007 and the fraud took place in 2008. Jose even registered a criminal complaint with Los Angeles police.
The forum had ruled in her favour in 2010. Aggrieved, the bank moved an appeal before the state consumer commission in 2011. In 2013, it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the district forum's order. The same year, the bank submitted a revision petition before the national consumer commission.
The bank, in its plea, told the national commission that Jose had "willfully" not opted for an SMS alert facility and thus computer-generated auto responses could not be sent to her. It also submitted that in case of suspicious or fraudulent activity, the bank is not liable to intimate card holders. The bank further claimed the responsibility of tallying the signatures on the transaction slips with the specimen available with the bank did not rest with it, since the chargeslips are not required to be furnished to it as the entire process is automated without any human intervention.
The commission, though, observed a bank cannot rely on arbitrary terms and conditions to wriggle out of its liability towards customers. It said the terms and conditions must be in conformity with directions issued by Reserve Bank of India.
The commission further said the first unauthorized transaction took place on December 15, 2008, and this was observed by the bank the same day. Jose's father, though, was contacted in India only three days later. On December 20, 2008, within three days of receiving information from the bank, the father responded saying 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 December 15, 2008, till the card was hotlisted, ie December 20, 2008," the commission said.