Order Date: 9th July 2024
Order Name: HDFC Bank Ltd. vs Satish Baishya
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 57 of 2024
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held HDFC Bank responsible for not addressing a customer’s complaints about unauthorized transactions and failing to provide SMS alerts for these deductions.
### Brief Facts:
A customer, holding a savings account and an ATM-cum-debit card with HDFC Bank, discovered Rs. 35,000 had been withdrawn from his account without his knowledge. Despite the bank’s usual practice of sending SMS alerts for transactions, he did not receive any such notifications. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue with the bank, the customer took the matter to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Nagaon, Assam.
### District Commission’s Decision:
The District Commission ruled in favor of the customer, directing HDFC Bank to refund the Rs. 35,000, along with Rs. 5,000 as compensation and another Rs. 5,000 towards legal costs. Unhappy with this decision, HDFC Bank appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Assam.
### State Commission’s Ruling:
The bank argued that the customer only provided a photocopy of the ATM card, implying it was not in his possession. They also claimed that the ATM card and PIN were always with the customer, making unauthorized transactions unlikely. Additionally, the bank contended that the District Commission lacked jurisdiction over fraud allegations. However, the State Commission dismissed the bank’s appeal and upheld the District Commission’s order.
### NCDRC’s Observations:
Dissatisfied, HDFC Bank approached the NCDRC. The NCDRC observed that Rs. 35,000 had been withdrawn in seven transactions from different locations. The customer found out about these transactions only when he visited the bank on August 12, 2013, and subsequently lodged an FIR on August 13, 2013. He also informed the bank that he didn’t receive SMS alerts for these transactions, despite receiving alerts for previous ones.
The NCDRC noted the absence of CCTV evidence to contradict the customer’s claims and confirmed that the bank failed in its duty by not ensuring SMS alerts were sent for the disputed transactions.
### Final Decision:
The NCDRC highlighted that its revisional jurisdiction is limited to cases of jurisdictional error or significant irregularity. Since both the District and State Commissions had issued well-reasoned orders, the NCDRC found no reason to intervene. Consequently, it upheld the orders of the State Commission and dismissed HDFC Bank’s revision petition.
### Takeaway:
Banks are obligated to ensure that customers are informed of any transactions, especially unauthorized ones, through SMS alerts. This case underscores the importance of prompt and adequate service from banks in protecting customers’ interests.
