Order Name: Neil E. Lobo Vs. Bank of Baroda
Case No.: F.A. No. 1662/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, recently ruled that a deficiency in service cannot be assumed without proper evidence. It is up to the complainant to prove any such deficiency.
Case Summary
The case involves an NRI living in the USA who had a bank account with Bank of Baroda. In 2013, he found that $80,000 (approximately Rs. 43,87,531) had been transferred from his account to someone named Sheila Montgomer in North Carolina, USA, without his permission. Suspecting his email had been hacked and used to authorize the transfers, he reported the incident to the police and the Cyber Crime Branch. He also contacted the Banking Ombudsman, who refused to handle the case due to the need for more detailed evidence. The complainant then took the matter to the State Commission of Karnataka, accusing the bank of processing the unauthorized transfers based on a forged email without proper verification. However, the State Commission dismissed the complaint, noting that it involved criminal elements already under investigation and suggested pursuing the case under the Information Technology Act instead. Dissatisfied, the complainant appealed to the National Commission.
Bank’s Position
The bank argued that the transfers were made following instructions from the complainant’s registered email. They contended that the claim of hacking was under investigation by the Cyber Crime Branch, involving complex issues beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. The bank supported the State Commission’s decision, stating no negligence on their part as the instructions came from an authorized source. They referred to a Supreme Court ruling, which noted that consumer proceedings cannot resolve complex issues involving fraud or criminality, and requested dismissal of the appeal.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission noted that the alleged fund transfers were due to email hacking. The Banking Ombudsman and the State Commission both considered the matter to involve criminal elements, requiring investigation under the Information Technology Act. The Commission emphasized that unless there is proof of a deficiency in service by the bank, no liability under the Consumer Protection Act can be established. As no such deficiency was proven by the complainant, the Commission upheld the State Commission’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
Takeaway
This case highlights that in consumer disputes, especially those involving potential criminal activity, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish any deficiency in service. If criminal elements are involved, appropriate legal forums outside the Consumer Protection Act may be necessary to address such issues.
