HYDERABAD: The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (TSCDRC) directed State Bank of India (SBI) Koti to reimburse Rs 63,74,527 and a compensation of Rs 3 lakh to a customer for linking the complaint’s account with internet banking facility without any request from them which led to an online fraud.
The complainant, Biresh Chandra Gangopadhyay, a 92-year-old retired IAS officer, who worked as Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, is partially blind. The second complainant, his wife Aarati Gangopadhyay, who is 86, is totally blind.
The complainants opened a joint savings bank account in the SBI, Balkampet branch. They opened three fixed deposits for Rs 10 lakh, Rs 15 lakhs and Rs 15 lakh in 2017 for a period of one year with a mandate for auto-renewal for which FD receipts were issued in Aarati Gangopadhyay’s name.
In 2019, when Biresh Chandra went to the bank to update the passbook of his wife he was informed that the printer was not working and he was given an account statement for the period November 2018 November-March, 2019. He was shocked to see that their account showed a balance of Rs 3 lakh only instead of approximately Rs 28 lakh. He noticed that all the unauthorised withdrawals were made through internet banking though the said account does not have an internet banking facility and it had a ‘View Only’ facility.
He brought the fact to the notice of the branch manager of the bank. He also lodged a police complaint drawing attention to the unauthorised withdrawal of approximately Rs 63.75 lakh from his wife’s savings bank account including premature and unauthorised closure of three fixed deposits amounting to Rs 40 lakh.
The 37 transactions were done for a total amount of Rs 63,74,536 in the name of five companies. The bank’s contention is that Aarati Gangopadhyay’s internet credentials were compromised and OTPs were sent on each of the occasions when her internet banking was breached. The bank submitted that the domestic helper of the complainants through whom they used to do banking transactions was involved in the disputed transactions.
The TSCDRC stated that despite knowing that the customer was a senior citizen who consciously opted for ‘View Only’ access, it was wilful negligence to leave the vulnerable customer to her own resources without verification. The Commission directed SBI to bear the responsibility for facilitating the transfer.
‘Wilful Negligence’
The Consumer forum stated that despite knowing that the customer was a senior citizen who consciously opted for ‘View Only’ access, it was wilful negligence to leave the vulnerable customer to her own resources without proper verification