Case Background: Satish Debbarma, an SBI customer, received a fraudulent call on August 19, 2022, leading him to share his One-Time Password (OTP). Subsequently, his account was compromised, and over three lakh rupees were debited. Despite his immediate attempts to contact the bank, his efforts were thwarted due to his phone being hacked. Debbarma rushed to the SBI Branch Manager, who deactivated his accounts by 7 PM, preventing further fraudulent transfers. A police complaint was lodged the following day.
Bank's Response and Compensation: On August 24, 2022, SBI refunded ₹1,96,000 to Debbarma, but the remaining amount lost to the fraud remained unpaid. Dissatisfied, Debbarma approached the district consumer court, which dismissed his complaint, prompting him to appeal to the State consumer forum.
Legal Proceedings and Findings: The State consumer forum, presided by Justice Arindam Lodh and members Daliya Saha and Jhantu Debnath, found SBI at fault for delays in addressing Debbarma's complaint. The Commission noted that the bank's delay of three days, justified by two holidays, was unacceptable. It emphasized that customer service should not be compromised even on weekends, especially in financial matters.
Bank's Justification Rejected: SBI's explanation that the delay occurred because the complaint was made over the weekend was rejected by the Commission. The Commission highlighted that August 20, 2022, was not a significant holiday, and the bank should have attended to the urgent financial matter promptly. The Commission criticized SBI for its negligence and failure to provide the expected level of service.
Details of the Fraud and Bank's Systems: Debbarma's complaint revealed that the hacked amount was held in a parking account of the bank until midnight on August 22. Despite this, the bank's system administrator did not take necessary actions to refund the money. The Commission observed that the bank's system is designed to hold transactions for at least 48 hours before settlement, yet the fraudulent amount was held for over 96 hours, indicating severe negligence.
Commission's Conclusion and Order: The Commission concluded that SBI's negligence resulted in financial loss for Debbarma. It directed SBI to pay the remaining ₹1,49,500 to Debbarma within three weeks. Additionally, the bank was ordered to compensate Debbarma with ₹50,000 for the deficiency in service.
Implications and Reflection: This case underscores the critical need for banks to respond swiftly and efficiently to fraud complaints. The Commission's decision serves as a reminder for financial institutions to uphold their duty of care towards customers, ensuring prompt action to mitigate losses in fraud cases.
Conclusion: The Tripura consumer court's ruling against SBI for its delayed response to an OTP fraud complaint highlights the importance of timely and effective customer service in banking. This case reinforces the expectation that banks must prioritize customer concerns and act swiftly to prevent financial losses due to fraud.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.